Standing Committee F

[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Clause 24 - Standard duration of registration

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 271, in 
clause 24, page 9, line 18, leave out from 'effect' to 'as' in line 20 and insert— 
 '(a) unless and until such time as the licensee may be shown to the satisfaction of the registrar to have breached its terms, or 
 (b) for such period'.—[Mr. Gray.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Marion Roe: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 177, in 
clause 24, page 9, line 19, leave out 'three years' and insert 'six months'.
 Amendment No. 321, in 
clause 24, page 9, line 19, leave out 'years' and insert 'months'.
 Government amendment No. 333. 
 Amendment No. 230, in 
clause 24, page 9, line 21, at end add 
 'or 
 (c) such shorter period starting with that date as the registrar or Tribunal think fit'.
 Amendment No. 322, in 
clause 25, page 9, line 25, leave out 'years' and insert 'months'.
 Government amendment No. 334. 
 Amendment No. 231, in 
clause 25, page 9, line 28, at end add 
 'or 
 (c) such shorter period starting with that date as the registrar or Tribunal think fit'.
 Before I call Mr. Pickthall to resume his speech, I should tell the Committee that I am not minded to allow a separate debate on clause stand part.

Colin Pickthall: In the one sentence that I managed to get in before half-time, I referred to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who has been good enough to let me know that he cannot be here for the early part of this sitting.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman calls attention to the absence of my right hon. Friend. We are thin on the ground on this side of the Committee as my colleagues have decided that the debate in the House on humanitarian aid to Iraq is more important than a debate on hunting with hounds, but they will join us as soon as they can.

Colin Pickthall: I fully understand that the right hon. Gentleman has good and genuine reasons for not being here. In any case, I shall not say anything unpleasant about him. In trying to counter the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), he said more than once that they did not trust the registrar. However, I hope that he and other Committee members support the thrust of amendments Nos. 230 and 231, which would give the registrar and tribunal greater control over the duration of a registration and thus enable us to express our confidence in them. I am speaking to the amendments on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), who has been unavoidably detained in her constituency by the boundary commission.
 Clause 24 gives the registrar no powers to specify duration of less than three years, as laid out in paragraph (a). The matter would be entirely in the hands of the applicant, but it is hard to imagine that many applicants for registration would apply for a period of less than the maximum. In effect, three years will become the norm if the clause is not amended. The amendments would give the registrar and the tribunal discretion to grant registration for a shorter period. 
 I was vastly entertained by this morning's contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale. Like him and many other Members, I do not have a dog, and I am determined never to have one following my alarming experiences of his dogs in the past, which I shall not go into. I suggest to my hon. Friend that amendments Nos. 230 and 231 would make a rational apportionment of time possible without bogging down the registrar or tribunal with repeat applications. 
 My hon. Friend rightly applied the test of utility to clause 24. If an applicant was seeking registration to clear up a particular infestation, for example, he might reasonably need a season or two, or perhaps a few months. We cannot say, without knowing the particular circumstances. If, however, the applicant was seeking registration, taking into account clause 8, to protect, say, growing timber or to ensure an area's biological diversity, three years might well be reasonable. The amendments would place trust in the registrar to negotiate with applicants and judge the appropriate necessary duration for each registration. 
 Amendment No. 271, which leads this group and stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), would, in effect, extend the time scale indefinitely and keep it entirely in the discretion of the successful applicant until he 
''may be shown . . . to have breached its terms''.
 I am reminded of the skills deployed by experienced practitioners of the filibuster, who can keep that activity going indefinitely while staying just in order. We on this side have long been admirers of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in that regard. Should amendment No. 271 be agreed, he might well be able to set up as a consultant to the hunting industry on how to keep registration going indefinitely.

James Gray: That is a good point. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that my right hon. Friend is very good at filibustering, but we are talking about a hunt carrying out the terms and details of the registration to the letter and complying with the terms of the Bill to the letter. Even if it got very close to the edge, if it stayed within the law, its activities would be lawful.

Colin Pickthall: Indeed, and amendment No. 271 would enable such activities to continue indefinitely, provided that the hunt kept within the terms of the law.
 Having made those points, I recognise that Government amendments Nos. 333 and 334 will effectively achieve the same end. Obviously, we do not want two sets of amendments doing the same thing, as that would be silly. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will make that clear, so I do not want to push amendments Nos. 230 and 231 any further.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Member for Weaver Vale, who spoke this morning, thought to disarm us by saying that amendment No. 321 is probing. It may well be that all he meant was that he would not push it to a vote, unless someone else forced that on him. That amendment is not probing in the proper sense of the word, however. It is a shot across the Government's bows to make them realise that the vast majority of Labour Members in the House of Commons disapprove of the Bill and the mechanics, of which the clause is but one example, that it provides.
 Looking at amendment No. 177, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester, and amendment No. 321, we see that nine Labour Members of Parliament consider the Government's proposals in clause 24 unsatisfactory. That is because those Members are total banners who do not think that one can compromise in any way with those of us on the other side of the argument or that the status quo should be allowed to continue. 
 This bodged Bill is an attempt to achieve a compromise between the two extreme positions, but that attempt is clearly not satisfactory to the proposers of amendments Nos. 177 and 321. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said this morning, we fool ourselves if we think that the motive behind those amendments is anything other than a desire to let the Government know that they are in trouble. 
 When we consider the Bill on Report on the Floor of the House, a proposal along the lines of a total ban will be moved. It is but the vanguard of that argument that we are now seeing. We know that, below the horizon, the massed ranks of the parliamentary Labour party are girding themselves for the tabling of an amendment far more explicit than the so-called probing amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. 
 The hon. Gentleman at least had the decency to blush during my right hon. Friend's remarks, because he knew that he and his motives had been exposed. 
 Unfortunately, the Minister could not see him, because he was facing the other way. 
 This is an absurd attempt to destroy the Bill. The views of the nine Members of Parliament who have put their names to amendments Nos. 177 and 321 are well known, but what causes me even more concern is the cavalier attitude that lies behind the amendments and those that are similar to them. Earlier, we discussed the administrative logjam that would be bound to occur if either amendment were agreed. If one considers how many hunting organisations there are and how many licence applications there are bound to be when the Bill becomes law, and adds on to that the problem of the registrar having to review applications every three or six months, one sees that the realistic prospect is that he would not reach a conclusion on many of the applications. Of course, that is entirely in line with the intentions of the total ban brigade. They do not want the registrar to complete his work satisfactorily; they want him to be held up with continual applications and a continual paper chase.

Rob Marris: There is a contradiction in the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Is he aware of clause 51(3)(b), which will allow hunting to continue while an application is being processed? His argument about clogging up the system is entirely wrong.

Edward Garnier: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I am talking about not the process of hunting, but the process whereby the registrar would deal with the applications in front of him. If the licensing system becomes permanently engaged and the registrar has to consider new applications every three months, which will mean that he must consider the next decision before finalising the preceding one to achieve a consecutive period of licensed hunting, he will be fully engaged in opening letters and replying to them. He will not be reaching conclusions.

James Gray: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) is right and that what he says is greatly to our advantage? The registrar will be deluged with tens of thousands of applications on the first day, and it will take many years for them to go through the courts and the European Courts. We will be hunting for years and years after the Bill becomes law. That is the absurdity of its drafting.

Edward Garnier: It may well be that there is plenty about the Bill that is absurd, but I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made an amusing but erroneous point. If amendment No. 321 or amendment No. 177 came into force, the registrar would not be able to go home in the evenings because he would be constantly dealing with applications.
 More importantly, the amendments tabled by Labour Members are cruel and hard hearted, as the proposals would effectively destroy the hunting organisations that would be the main applicants for licences to hunt. If a hunt is entitled to carry out the activity for only three or six months, it will be impossible to maintain a continuous employment set-
 up for hunt staff or an efficient and well-run organisation of the sort that the registrar will want to see when considering a group application. 
 Of course, the hon. Member for Worcester and the Members who support amendment No. 321 do not care about that. They have come on to this earth to ensure that hunting is banned, and they will do anything to ensure that it is. Amendment No. 177, which is a Trojan horse of an amendment, and its junior cousin, amendment No. 321, are nothing but a brazen attempt—a dressing-up of a proposal—to destroy the registrar's ability to carry out his work. They involve futile and silly obfuscation, which I trust the Government will be able to push well to one side. 
 The Government should be in no doubt: a similar proposal will be introduced on Report, and I dare say that there will be similar moves when the Bill comes back from the Lords. For Labour Members, the general thrust is that hunting should be banned. In their view, there can be no compromise on anything resembling a licence to hunt.

Rob Marris: I hope that you will give me some latitude, Mrs. Roe, because, in discussing the amendments, I wish to refer to clause 51, which I mentioned when I intervened on the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
 After a registration application has been lodged and until final determination by the registrar—whether it has been lodged for renewal after three years, as the Bill is drafted, or after three months, as sought by the amendment—hunting can continue under clause 51(3)(b). Therefore, the arguments advanced by Opposition Members—particularly the eloquent arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough—are nonsense.

James Gray: I was slightly thrown by the brevity of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, not least because I was looking for amendment No. 45 to clause 51, which I fear may change the interim arrangements. However, I was unable to find it in the short time that the hon. Gentleman was on his feet.
 In every Committee stage of every Bill, there is one moment that one can look back on as a highlight, and I think that this morning's debate on this group of amendments constituted the highlight for a variety of reasons. I thought that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal was a highlight for its wit and the clever way in which it exposed the reality behind the amendments. The speech of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale was equally a highlight because of the wild impracticality of much of what he said; the notion of rogue foxes, and of going out to catch one fox, reapplying on each occasion and making sure that it was the right fox. No doubt we would have to know what the fox's address was, although whether that information would be revealed to the animal welfare groups is another matter. We will have to examine that. Clearly it was not a practical speech. 
 If the purpose of the Bill is animal welfare and to stop practices that Labour Members believe should be 
 stopped, that has been achieved by passing clause 8. The cruelty versus utility test in clause 8 will, as hon. Members have seemed to agree, be sufficient to stop most practices of which they disapprove. In that case, why should registration for those who achieve it—I imagine that remarkably few will do so—not be allowed to stand for as long as its terms are not breached? It is extraordinarily bureaucratic and small-minded to say, ''The Government will put you through a narrow hoop and make you jump over a series of high barriers to become licensed. Not only that, but they will ask you to do it every three months or every six months.'' The amendments achieve nothing from the standpoint of those who are opposed to hunting, and they certainly achieve nothing from the point of view of, say, the gamekeeper who, under one of the amendments, would be required to apply four times a year for a licence to use his dogs in the legitimate pursuit of his occupation. 
 I very much hope that the hon. Gentlemen who tabled the amendments will see the wisdom of their ways and will not press them to a vote. If they do, Opposition Members will certainly oppose them. 
 I have not dealt carefully enough with the Government's two amendments, amendments Nos. 333 and 334, which would insert into the Bill the registrar's ability to limit the amount of time for which he will register the hunt.

Alan Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I am in the middle of a particularly good argument. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants to add to it.

Alan Whitehead: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman considers that he is in the middle of a really good argument. That is progress. My concern, which I mentioned in an earlier intervention, is that as far as I understand it—again, I mention this in a spirit of inquiry—schedule 1 would cover a gamekeeper with a dog pursuing the sort of activities suggested by the hon. Gentleman. What he is talking about is already in the Bill. Therefore, his argument is not quite as good as he thought it was.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not read schedule 1, which exempts a person who is flushing out of cover with one or more dogs, for the purpose of eating the animal; or that may be one of the purposes. That would not cover the gamekeeper who is out with four or five dogs. One can also think of occasions when a shoot would be out using dogs for a rough shoot, putting game up. If a person let four or five dogs on to a fox that happened to get shot by the hunt, he or she would be breaking the law. Therefore, a number of purposes for which a gamekeeper might use several dogs would not come under the exemptions in schedule 1. I hope that that clarifies the point for the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. If the hon. Gentleman believes that all the activities that the gamekeeper can do using dogs are exempt, Opposition Members will be delighted.
Dr. Whitehead rose—

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman must listen to me before he jumps up again. We will point out when we discuss exempt hunting under schedule 1 why we do not believe that all those activities are exempt and why unfair restrictions would be placed on the legitimate activities of, say, the gamekeeper. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that should be the case and we can demonstrate to him that it is not, we will look forward to him speaking and voting with us on schedule 1 and to him seeking to persuade his right hon. Friend the Minister to listen to what he says. However, that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about how often people should reapply for registration.

Alan Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman must not try to tempt me into a discussion about whether the Bill would allow gamekeepers to carry out their legitimate occupation. That is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing how often a gamekeeper needs to come back and re-register, assuming—I hope that I am wrong—that he needs to register. Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Under at least one of the amendments proposed by Labour Members, that would be every three months, so the gamekeeper would apply four times a year, which would be absurd.
 More important than any of that little diversion is the point that it would not save one fox or one animal. It would not add in any shape, size or form to animal welfare, and nobody could argue that it would. If someone can achieve registration, why should it not be for three years? Why should it be for less than that? 
 Before I was interrupted, I was about to say that I was more satisfied with Government amendments Nos. 333 and 334, which propose that, on some occasions, the registrar should be able to decide how long registration should be for. I imagine that normally it would be for three years. However, if the circumstances in a certain area were changing or if the hunt were prepared to register for a shorter time, it could be for less. If the registrar wanted to give an individual or a hunt the benefit of doubt, he might say ''We'll let you try it for a year, fellows, and see how you get on, and after that we may renew it.'' Assuming that that is the intention behind the Government amendments and that registration will normally be for three years—although on some occasions, and for good reason, the registrar might vary that—I would not necessarily oppose them. 
 My instinct is to press our amendment to a vote, to oppose Labour Members' amendments that are taken to a vote—they would make a mockery of the Bill—but not necessarily to oppose the Government's amendments, which are not unreasonable.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman was right to say that it has been an interesting and entertaining debate. We heard assumptions about the level of fox predation and references to rogue foxes. We heard about the value of drawing a general conclusion from a specific. We also heard about the problems of the foxes of Montgomeryshire, which might be well advised to catch a bus to Cumbria, where my hon. Friend the
 Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) says there are hunters who would welcome them; I suspect that my hon. Friend would not take the same view.
 The starting point for me is that three years seemed a generous but not unreasonable period in the context of an ongoing need to control the population; in other words, where there was a general problem. That is why we framed the Bill in those terms. However, I have thought about the lack of flexibility and the variety of circumstances that might need to be addressed, issues that were raised not least by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). 
 There is serious discussion in the Burns report of the need to be clear about the circumstances that may need to be controlled. Paragraph 5.12 refers to predation on lambs and states: 
''It is not easy, however, to establish with any certainty how serious a problem fox predation represents. Predation is not usually witnessed; it is not always possible to distinguish between the killing of healthy lambs and scavenging dead or dying ones; and other predators, including domestic dogs, also kill lambs.''
 Paragraph 5.14 states: 
''The best estimate seems to be that a low percentage (less than 2 per cent.) of otherwise viable lambs are killed by foxes in England and Wales. However, levels of predation (or perceived predation) can be highly variable between farms and between different areas.''
 I do not recall—and I certainly could not put my hands on—references in Burns to rogue foxes. They made a guest appearance this morning, when Opposition Members mentioned them to illustrate the need to protect livestock. It is therefore slightly ironic that Opposition Members then sought to cast doubt on their existence. However, the Committee's proceedings are sometimes full of puzzles.

Lembit Öpik: I apologise because I suspect that I will be going in and out a bit this afternoon to deal with some Welsh matters, but I mean no disrespect to the Minister. There are probably differences among Opposition Members, but the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and I are quite convinced from what we have seen that some foxes have more of a predilection for mindless killing. I, at least, believe that there is probably such a thing as a rogue fox or a fox that is more likely to kill gratuitously and to take only one chick.

Alun Michael: I am happy to accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Looking at what Burns said about the level of the problem—that is, that it may often be fairly small, or smaller than it is perceived to be—and what he said about problems existing in specific times and specific areas, convinces me that there needs to be more flexibility in the system. That may not be possible with a presumption of three years or, indeed, with too short a period, which would require far too frequent reapplications and lead to a bureaucratic burden. We must achieve an outcome—I will come to it in a moment—that allows the necessary degree of flexibility, and a period that makes sense in terms of evidence of the need for the activity. In that way, we will get close to a sensible conclusion, which both sides could see as reasonable.

James Gray: Before the Minister moves on to that, I do not want to lose the point about the rogue fox, and the intervention by the hon. Member for
 Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) may have cemented it. The purpose of foxhunting is not to deal with rogue foxes. Pest control using dogs will not control rogue foxes. There may be such things as rogue foxes, but I am not that convinced. However, the purpose of pest control using dogs is to deal with the generality of foxes, which may occasionally include rogue foxes. However, it is not done specifically to deal with the one-off rogue fox.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman describes his reasons and those of his friends for being involved in hunting. The reasons for making an application under the Bill might equally relate to general population control, if evidence demonstrated the need for it. There might also be specific circumstance or short-term circumstances of the sort referred to by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. I am persuaded that there should be the possibility of addressing those circumstances because, in either case, one would address the evidence.
 The applicant would say, ''This is why I am applying. This is why I believe that the activity needs to be undertaken for this period.'' It would clearly be perverse to require a three-year registration for a short-term requirement. On the other hand, it would be perverse in the other direction—if there were adequate evidence of the need for population control over a period of time—to ask for a continual reapplication. That is why I seek to persuade the Committee that it is right to have an evidence-based approach—saying, ''If you want to apply for a particular period, show why it is appropriate''—and that the capacity of the registrar or the tribunal to vary the period applied for is consistent with the amendments that we adopted on Tuesday in respect of their ability to add or require conditions, rather than their having to be in the original application. 
 Amendment No. 271 would enable registration to be valid until the registrar was satisfied that the terms of registration had been breached. The effect is that they could remain valid indefinitely. 
Mr. Gray indicated assent.

Alun Michael: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman confirms that that is what he is seeking to achieve. I do not think that it is acceptable, because it is only fair that—given that circumstances change over time—the individual who is registered should at some point be required to make the case again for registration, and the prescribed body should have the opportunity to make representations on the application for renewal. I think that it is a question of getting the balance right between making that period too short and allowing it to be too long. I do not find an open-ended situation to be acceptable.
 Amendments Nos. 230 and 231 are straightforward in intent; namely, to provide the registrar and the tribunal with the power to determine the duration of a registration, which can be no more than three years. That seems to me a sensible approach. The registrar and the tribunal, in seeing the evidence from the applicant, would be well placed to make a judgement on the appropriate length of time that a registration 
 should remain valid. I am persuaded by the arguments advanced from both sides of the Committee that it is a matter best determined on a case-by-case basis. 
 I recommend to the Committee that the principle of those amendments be accepted. Government amendments Nos. 333 and 334 are intended to achieve that result. They would allow the registrar or the tribunal to specify a shorter time limit than that requested by the applicant for registration. Again, that is consistent with the changes agreed to allow the registrar or the tribunal to impose additional conditions on why registered hunting should be allowed.

Edward Garnier: In dealing with the registrar, we are dealing with a paper exercise and, therefore, the to and fro of argument that goes on in a courtroom cannot take place. If, having read the evidence, the registrar thinks that a one-month, six-month or 18-month licence should be applicable when the application is for three years, will he be required to give the applicant notice and write asking, ''Do you have anything to say before I pass judgment?''

Alun Michael: It would be entirely appropriate for the applicant to receive a comment; there would be a sort of ''minded to'' notification, so that the applicant, or indeed the animal welfare organisation, would have the opportunity to advance an argument. The hon. and learned Member is right to raise that point. Otherwise, there could be decisions without reasons. So I think that the answer to his intervention is yes.

Hugo Swire: Will it be incumbent in law on the registrar to respond to any correspondence within a given time frame?

Alun Michael: I believe that there are such requirements with regard to the work of the tribunal, and standards for correspondence should be applied for the registrar; probably the time would be a bit shorter than my Department sometimes manages to achieve. However, I can tell Opposition Members that we are improving dramatically.
 Amendment No. 333 relates to the duration of the original application for registration; amendment No. 334 makes the same provision for the renewed application.

James Gray: I am rather puzzled, from a drafting standpoint, as to why the Minister supports amendment No. 333, which is a Government amendment, yet appears also to say that amendment No. 230 is acceptable. Both amendments achieve precisely the same end. The Minister's amendment allows the registrar to set a shorter period for registration, as does amendment No. 230. If both are admitted into the Bill, as seems likely, that would be tautological.

Alun Michael: No, I was saying that that was the intention of amendment No. 230.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester raised an interesting point about having a probationary period, which I had not considered before this debate. It might be appropriate to have one in some cases, but not in others. The idea of it being a universal probationary period would depend on the available 
 evidence. However, he made a good point that there are occasions when that might be a sensible way to approach an application. The registrar or the tribunal could make clear that it had that in mind. The flexible approach to which I referred would allow that approach to be adopted. 
 I hope that my hon. Friend will not press amendments Nos. 177, 321, 322 and 231 to a vote. If six months were the appropriate time limit, the registrar, under amendments Nos. 333 and 334, would be able to make six months the limit. I seek to avoid repeated applications. No sooner would the registration have been granted than an application for renewal would need to be determined. If the evidence justified a registration lasting three months only, the registrar would be able to limit it. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester made—that the evidence might justify a three-year period—is entirely right. The flexibility provided by our amendments would achieve the desired result without the potential for overloading the registrar and the tribunal system. That could happen, especially in the early stages before everything has settled down and before everybody is clear on what is likely to succeed and what is not. 
 The underlying objective of the hon. Gentleman's amendments is to ensure that hunting is registered for no longer than is appropriate. I am happy to echo that objective. That can be achieved under clause 34(1), which provides for a prescribed animal welfare body to apply to the registrar for a registration to be cancelled on the grounds that the two tests specified in clause 8 are no longer met by the hunting concerned. Therefore, if the appropriate period at the time of the application is a short one, registration can be achieved. However, if circumstances change, the registration can be cancelled under clause 34(1). 
 The Bill provides for registration to be for fewer than three years if that has been specified in the application. However, I have indicated that amendments Nos. 333 and 334 would allow the registrar and tribunal to specify the period, thus making it consistent with yesterday's discussion about conditions. 
 For the benefit of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal—who has been able to join us from his other parliamentary business—I confirm that the Bill is not intended to be a fudge or a compromise. It is based on the right principles and the evidence to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this difficult and contentious issue. That difficulty and contention have been demonstrated in Committee on occasions. 
 The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal seemed to be arguing for compromise, and then seemed to want to negotiate by threat and insult, which is not a sensible way to approach the matter. He sought my forgiveness for his comments, and then gave me a fresh opportunity to forgive him. 
 As well as recommending a careful reading of the Bill, I clarify one particular point for the right hon. 
 Gentleman. I can confirm that registration is open to individuals, as set out in clause 13, as well as to groups, as is established in clause 14. Clause 17(7) allows the registrar to take into account whether the applicants would practise hunting in accordance with the conditions of registration.

John Gummer: As a lay preacher, I am sure that the Minister would relish the opportunity of greater forgiveness, which would be a proper relationship between us. I worry about his use of the words ''compromise'' and ''fudge''. I am not favour of fudges, but I thought that he intended to come as close as he could to a Bill that was as widely acceptable as possible. His aim is laudable but sometimes some of his hon. Friends do not help him. In that sense, he may like to forgive them rather than me.

Alun Michael: Opportunities for forgiveness abound. I am being careful with the phraseology because the words ''compromise'' and ''fudge'' have been used together almost universally to describe the Government's intention. I am happy to accept the right hon. Gentleman's clear distinction between the two words; if he will not confuse the two, I shall not do so either.
 I want to make it clear that I set out to find common ground where it was possible to do so. Some of it is at a theoretical level of principle, which is sometimes important. For instance, for both sides to agree that cruelty should not be allowed—even if they passionately disagree about what constitutes it—is not insignificant, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree. Where common ground cannot be found, I have sought to find clear principles rather than dividing the difference between the two sides. I have tried to find ways in which consistently to apply those principles to a whole range of circumstances, which is the point of the case-by-case approach. 
 I originally felt that a three-year time scale might be the right arrangement but have realised that a shorter period may well be appropriate. The registrar and the tribunal have sensibly been given the discretion to fix a period that is justified by the evidence, and I hope that that approach commends itself to the Committee.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West drew our attention to clause 51. How does clause 51 relate to our current discussion?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West implied that clause 51 provided for all hunting to continue pending the final determination of applications for registration, and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough made a similar point. There is, however, a distinction to be drawn. Clause 25(3) covers delays in the handling of ordinary applications; clause 51 applies to applications made immediately before the Bill is fully enacted.
 In the case of applications made before the Bill is fully enacted, hunting may continue until either the registrar or, if there is an appeal, the tribunal reaches a decision, which is what is meant by ''finally determined'' in clause 45(5). That is why I indicated to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the suggestion that hunting would continue indefinitely was a 
 misapprehension. The provision is intended to avoid injustice in the early days of the new registration scheme, and it will prevent hunting carrying on for years while endless and possibly unjustified appeals are made to higher courts. I am grateful to him for drawing me back to the point, and I hope that I have made the matter clear.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the Minister for clearing up the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West's confusion about the application of clause 51.

Alun Michael: I am glad to clear up anybody's doubts on the matter, and I hope that I have succeeded in doing so. I should be very surprised if my hon. Friend were confused; he is not usually confused. I commend the Government amendments, which I hope satisfy both Government and Opposition Members who have raised some significant points.

Michael Foster: When I tabled amendment No. 177, I did not realise that it would cause controversy this morning. I assure all members of the Committee that had I wanted to wreck the Bill, I would not have decided to spend 10 hours a week in Standing Committee. I would have waited until the Bill was on Report, when changes can be made far more rapidly. I sit in Committee to try to make the Bill work within the parameters and framework that the Minister has laid out. Amendment No. 177 was a genuine attempt to bring a probationary period into the process.
 I should like to thank the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal because, following my speech on Second Reading and comments that appeared in the media about amendments that I had tabled in Committee, I received a number of letters from individuals concerned about animal welfare who were suggesting that I had gone soft. I will have to send them this issue of Hansard to make them realise how my opponents view amendment No. 177. 
 There are a number of disagreements about amendment No. 177. Amendments are tabled for genuine reasons, and it is arrogant to suggest that the right stance is available only to one side. We all have individual views and we all disagree from time to time. Members should not take the view that those who disagree with them are always wrong. Other Members may take a different stance and may disagree but their motives are genuine. 
 I am delighted that the Minister has tabled Government amendments Nos. 333 and 334 to make the clause's wording more flexible. I am disappointed that the concept of a probationary period has not won his acclaim, although he said that it would be technically possible. With that in mind and given that his amendments will make the system more flexible, I can tell the Committee that I shall not be pressing my amendment to a vote.

Mike Hall: I can confirm that I shall not be pressing my amendments.

Judy Mallaber: I shall not be pressing my amendments, and I apologise for not being in the Committee earlier.

Alun Michael: We need to be sure that the numbering is clear. I shall move Government amendments Nos. 333 and 334 formally; my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley was referring to two parallel amendments.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 14.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment made: No.333, in 
clause 24, page 9, line 20, after 'specified', insert— 
 '(i) by the registrar or Tribunal on granting the application for registration, or 
 (ii) where no period is specified under subparagraph (i),'.—[Alun Michael.] 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Renewal of registration

Amendment made: No. 334, in 
 clause 25, page 9, line 27, after 'specified', insert— 
 '(i) by the registrar or Tribunal on granting the application for renewal, or 
 (ii) where no period is specified under subparagraph (i),'.—[Alun Michael.] 
Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Automatic conditions of individual registration

Colin Pickthall: I beg to move amendment No. 222, in
clause 27, page 10, line 13, leave out from 'registration' to 'hunting' in line 18 and insert— 
 '(a) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found, flushed out or captured, any wild mammal is shot dead by a competent 
person (and in particular that each dog used in the hunting is kept under close control), 
 (b) no more than two dogs are used, 
 (c) no dog is used below ground, and 
 (d) the'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 39, in 
clause 27, page 10, line 17, after 'person', insert 
 'who shall be so deemed by the Master of a recognised Hunt, by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, or by a Constable.'.
 Amendment No. 224, in 
clause 28, page 10, line 33, leave out from 'registration' to 'hunting' in line 38 and insert— 
 '(a) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found, flushed out or captured any wild mammal is shot by a competent person (and in particular that each dog used in the hunting is kept under close control), 
 (b) no dog is used below ground, and 
 (c) the'.

Colin Pickthall: My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) is unavoidably absent. As her amendment No. 222 and my amendment No. 224 are virtually identical—although not entirely so—I shall speak to them both at once.
 I was going to refer to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal again. However, he must have anticipated me and disappeared just in time. If he participates in the debate on these amendments, he will no doubt want to bring up again his apparent surprise that compromise is difficult to reach on these matters. My right hon. Friend the Minister is very serious in his search for accommodation where accommodation can be found. He has been consistent about that and is seeking to apply strong underlying principles to everything that the Bill does. I wish to ensure that those underlying principles are as rigorously and as toughly applied as possible. That is the purpose of the amendments. 
 The two amendments, which refer to the clauses concerned with automatic conditions of individual and group registration, strengthen and tighten the intentions of clause 27(2)(a) and (b) and clause 28(2)(a) and (b). The phrase ''as soon as possible'' tightens in clause 27 the word ''quickly'', indicating the time scale for dispatching the animal concerned. The amendments also tidy the clauses by specifying shooting as a method of dispatch, as opposed to the word ''killed'' in subsection (2)(a) and the word ''shot'' in subsection (2)(b), which seem a little clumsy. The wording of the amendment is more elegant and certain in that regard. The amendment seeks to ensure that 
''reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found, flushed out or captured, any wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person (and in particular that each dog used in the hunting is kept under close control)''.
 The aim of the amendments is to avoid cruelty and the contravention of the test of utility, because they dramatically restrict the element of chase involved in 
 hunting, which I believe—there are large differences on this—is in itself cruel, whether or not it ends in a kill. My right hon. Friend the Minister said a few minutes ago that cruelty is something that should not be allowed. The amendment takes another step in that direction.

James Gray: I do not accept the line of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he accept that what he proposes is identical with what is proposed under schedule 1, which is titled ''Exempt Hunting''? He would remove the distinction between registered hunting and exempt hunting, and thereby wreck the entire Bill.

Colin Pickthall: The last thing on my mind is wrecking the entire Bill. I am anxious to retain some central points of it, and of course I realise what is in schedule 1.
 The amendments also include the requirements that the dogs used are kept under proper control, which seems axiomatic to me, and that 
''no more than two dogs are used''.
 Perhaps most importantly, amendments Nos. 222 and 224 both say that 
''no dog is to be used below ground'',
 which would prevent what I think is one of the worst aspects of pursuing wild mammals with dogs; the use of terriers in digging out. The use of terriers in the digging out of badgers is banned in law for well accepted reasons that we all understand and which most people support, although it is not unknown in my constituency for badger diggers, who still exist, to use the excuse that they were digging for foxes. 
 The Burns report was clear in expressing a strong view about the process of digging out. I do not want to go into that at great length now, because I suspect that we might come back to the topic in discussion of new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. In paragraph 9.20, the Burns report says: 
''In the absence of a ban, serious consideration could be given as to whether this practice should be allowed to continue and, if so, under what conditions.''
 In paragraph 6.52, Burns concluded that 
''the activity of digging out and shooting a fox involves a serious compromise of its welfare''—
 the famous phrase— 
''bearing in mind the protracted nature of the process and the fact that the fox is prevented from escaping.''
 The Burns committee examined two post mortems of foxes killed by terriers underground in which trauma before death was reported. It does not take much imagination to realise what goes on in a small hole under the ground when two fairly strong animals with good teeth meet face to face. It not only damages the fox and can be very protracted; it often damages the terrier.

Peter Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that there may be circumstances—for example, if a fox has been shot and wounded and gone to ground—in which using terriers is a humane course of action that prevents the fox dying a lingering
 death? I do not accept his general argument either, but, on that specific and narrow point, does he agree that his amendment is inhumane and cruel?

Colin Pickthall: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I honestly cannot conceive of the activity as humane. I am very much aware of the tremendous speech that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on the Second Reading of the previous Hunting Bill, which we considered a year or more ago. He exposed terrier work for what it is at great length and in great detail. I knew some of what he said beforehand, but his speech confirmed my opinions.
 As I said at the start, the amendments are intended to toughen, strengthen and clarify clauses 27 and 28. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept all or some of the amendments, at least in spirit, and I look forward to his reply, which I hope that I will hear soon.

Hugo Swire: I should like to preface my remarks about the Conservative amendment by saying that I, too, would rather be with other hon. and right hon. Members who are taking part in the debate on humanitarian contingency plans in Iraq. I apologise for not being here on Tuesday; I was taking part in the parliamentary armed forces scheme with the Royal Marines for 48 hours. When I spoke to them they were amazed to hear that I am spending so much time debating a Bill to ban hunting with dogs; all they are really concerned with talking about is the forthcoming war, if there is to be one, in the middle east. I am sure that you will quite properly stop me if I go too far, Mrs. Roe, but, having caught up with the debates that took place in my absence on Tuesday, I am extremely surprised by the allegations of the bung to the Government from various bodies—

Marion Roe: Order. I was not in the Chair at the time, but I understand that there was considerable debate on that issue. That moment has passed.

Hugo Swire: Thank you, Mrs. Roe. I knew that I should not be able to dwell on that for too long. I will start by discussing amendment No. 39, which differs from the two amendments that the hon. Member for West Lancashire spoke about. Amendment No. 39 is a positive suggestion whereas, whatever the hon. Gentleman says, the other two amendments are wrecking amendments, as I will demonstrate.
 The thinking behind amendment No. 39 relates to animal welfare, consideration of which has been so woefully absent from so much of the debate. The subjective nature of the matter means that we need dwell very carefully on the question of who is or is not competent to dispatch a fox at any stage of its life; towards the end of its life or when it is wounded. We need to ensure that we are clear about what we mean when we use that all-embracing word ''competent.'' That is why the Conservatives suggest that a hunt master, a representative of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation or a police constable should be best placed to pronounce on that matter. 
 We have fallen into the habit of selecting from the Burns report, and why not? In paragraph 6.60 Burns says: 
''We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective.''
 The report goes on to talk about snaring. There is a genuine concern. We should decide who is or is not competent in this context. 
 I do not know how many members of the Committee have tried to shoot a fox, whether or not it is wounded. I have, and I can assure the Committee that with a shotgun it is sometimes very difficult. Achieving a clean kill of a fox on the move requires considerable skill and—dare I use the word—competence. 
 That is why I have argued at previous sittings that I like the idea of hunting with hounds rather than shooting foxes, because there is no middle way. If one chases a fox with hounds the fox will either escape, by giving the hounds the slip, or it will be caught and dispatched quickly. There is no such guarantee with shooting, particularly if one is not very competent. Therefore, the amendment has been advanced for animal welfare reasons in an attempt to ensure that wild mammals are not wounded by inaccurate shots or, indeed—equally important—by the use of the wrong shot. 
 The amendments tabled by Labour Members alter the nature of the Bill. They bring to mind the only similar piece of legislation, with which we are becoming increasingly familiar; the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, whereby dogs are allowed to be used only for the purposes of locating and flushing wild animals from covert in order that they may be shot. 
 I shall not rehearse some of the descriptions given earlier in our Committee sittings, when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) quoted the wife of a master of foxhounds in Scotland as saying how horrified the hunting community in Scotland was increasingly becoming over the amount of wounded foxes that they were leading out.

Eric Martlew: If they are so horrified, why do they do it? There is no need for them to go out and chase the fox and then have somebody shoot it. If they were horrified, they would stop it.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman is unique if he is the only person in the Committee who believes that foxes do not have to be controlled. I strongly suspect that even the anti-foxhunters in Scotland saw that there was a legitimate role—

Eric Martlew: Coming from Cumbria, I am very conscious that on occasion foxes need to be controlled, but there is no need for people to get on horses, chase the fox for a considerable period and then shoot it. In my area, when farmers have a problem with a fox, they get the men with the lamps in. That is how they control the problem.

Hugo Swire: If they were doing in Scotland what the hon. Gentleman suggests, to my way of thinking they would be breaking the law. That is not what now happens in Scotland.

James Gray: Not only is the hon. Member for Carlisle wrong, that is not what his hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Lancashire is proposing. His hon.
 Friend is proposing that dogs should be used to flush the fox out of a wood to a dismounted person—there will be no horses in any shape, size or form necessarily—who will shoot it. All this business about horses exposes the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not like horses and red coats, but it has nothing to do with the amendment.

Hugo Swire: Indeed; I think we need to move on from this point.
 The whole question of restricting the use of terriers to two raises a further point about what has and has not been promised to people who have corresponded with the Minister in the past. It is interesting that under schedule 1(5): 
''The fourth condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of a dog below ground.''
 That is clear for everybody to see. But compare and contrast that with a letter that the Minister sent to Mr. Ken Butler, the chairman of the National Gamekeepers Organisation, on 12 January of this year in which he says: 
''The Bill is intended to prevent cruelty associated with hunting while still enabling farmers and gamekeepers to undertake pest control and other activities. It does not ban the use of dogs below ground but like other non exempt activities it does require that the activity passes the two tests of utility and cruelty before it is undertaken.''
 The truth is somewhere, but I have yet to ascertain where. Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Where does that leave those who are tasked with having to deal with the fox population, namely the gamekeepers? Gamekeepers would have to make 2,000 applications if they wished to continue their work. If the exemption is not made, animals will suffer. For instance, what will happen if deer is out of season? The requirement could also lead, the gamekeepers maintain, to dangerous shooting. That is perfectly clear. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire asked about the use of terriers to flush out wounded animals. Lord Burns in paragraph 6.56 of his report says: 
''Terriers are used at present by gamekeepers and others to dispatch cubs which have been orphaned in this way.''
 That clearly has a role. One of the key points about amendments Nos. 222 and 224 is their failure to comprehend the landscape and size of the country that we are talking about. The average Welsh plantation, for instance, is nearly three times the size of the Palace of Westminster; 357 plantations in Wales are over 100 hectares or 1 million sq m, an area 31 times the size of this vast building. To expect two dogs to find a fox in such an enormous area is optimistic and exposes yet again the weakness of the argument in the amendments. 
 There are 1,672 forests in England and Wales, an area of over 1 million sq m. If those forests were square, which they rarely are, they would have perimeters of at least 4,000 m. They would need, at the very least, in perfect conditions on flat ground more than 80 competent marksmen. There are 288,000 hectares of woodland in Wales, and 1,104,000 hectares of woodland in England. Many of them are in 
 uplands, often surrounded by sheep farms, and act as a natural reservoir of foxes. The only practical method of controlling foxes in such areas, even if one intends to shoot them, is to use packs of hounds. 
 The hon. Member for Weaver Vale proposed the licensing of packs of foxhounds for periods of as little as three months so that they could deal with a rogue fox. We suggested that where there is one fox, there is likely to be more than one. However, the hon. Gentleman's point underscored the failure to recognise the sheer size of the problem. It is not fair to put such pressure on licensed gamekeepers who will be held responsible for dealing with foxes' welfare. Nor do I think that it can be argued that it is fair on the fox to allow people to shoot and wound it, probably at the wrong range and with the wrong calibre weapon. 
 I do not believe that amendments Nos. 222 and 224 would contribute anything to the Bill but—the Minister probably agrees—they would fundamentally alter its purpose. However, if the Committee is genuinely concerned about animal welfare, it will agree that our amendment would be beneficial. It is increasingly obvious that nothing that the Government propose is driven by concern for the welfare of the fox.

Eric Martlew: First, may I dispel the hon. Gentleman's misconception that I do not like people riding around on horses? We have had horses in our family for over 30 years—the one that we have now we have had for 31—and I have been known to ride. As I have got older, I have come to find the trot more painful than it was, but the idea that I am against people riding horses and that I do not like seeing people in red coats is wrong.

James Gray: I am delighted to hear that. At 31 years of age, it must be one hell of a horse. My point was not that the hon. Gentleman dislikes horses, but that horses do not come into the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for West Lancashire, which relates to a dismounted person shooting a fox after it has been flushed out of cover.

Eric Martlew: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will see that it exposes my bigotry, or otherwise, over people on horses. I am glad that he accepts that that is not correct. I have done my share of mucking out, cleaning tack and all the other things associated with horses. I am not just a townie. The reason why I am on the Committee, and why I support amendments Nos. 222 and 224, is the chase and the kill. That is the bit—

James Gray: That is the point. The amendment does not propose a chase. It proposes that the vermin should be flushed and shot. If the hon. Gentleman's objection is the chase, he is speaking to the wrong amendment.

Eric Martlew: First, if I were talking to the wrong amendment, I am sure that you would pull me up, Mrs. Roe. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has been in Committee for too long and he is starting to get a little
 addled. The amendment is about reducing the chase or getting rid of it.
 I recently read an article on the sporting page—why it was there, I do not know—of that well-known newspaper the Cumberland and Westmorland Herald. It reported three days' hunting by the Ullswater hounds, chasing five foxes—one of them for over two and a half hours—and not killing any. That is not a good argument for hunting as pest control. The argument is about whether the foxes suffered during that time.

Hugo Swire: The point that I was trying to make involves the question of the fox being chased for five miles and then escaping. That supports my argument: the fox escaped and its welfare was not compromised. Imagine if the fox had been chased and was then shot and missed. That is when there is a welfare problem.

Eric Martlew: That is something on which the hon. Gentleman and I are not going to agree. Many of us believe that being chased by a pack of dogs is likely to generate fear in any mammal, whether it be a fox, a deer or a human being. I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman disagrees. I accept that no fox was killed on that occasion, but it seems to be a poor method of pest control. If the amendments tabled by my hon. Member for West Lancashire were agreed to, I am sure that the foxes would be killed. In any event, the chase creates fear in animals.

James Gray: I am terribly sorry to be boring about this, but the hon. Gentleman is speaking to an amendment to which he has put his name. It would permit a maximum of two dogs to be involved and allow them to go into cover to flush out the fox. It also provides that an appointed person should shoot the fox. In other words, there would be no chase.

Eric Martlew: The fact that you are not calling me out of order, Mrs. Roe, means that I must be right. I am trying to do away with the chase, and that is exactly what the amendments would achieve. It was proved that deer suffer great terror during the chase. Talking to former huntsmen in Cumbria, I have been told of incidences of the fox running to the point of exhaustion, turning round, lying down and facing the hounds. I believe that at that point the animal would be terrified. That is why I support the amendment. In fact, Professor Donald Broom of Cambridge university said that a hunt using dogs is bound to cause extreme fear and distress in hunted animals. There is no doubt about that. We all accept it, which is why the amendment should be accepted.
 We then come to the kill. People say that the kill is quick, the fox feels no pain and it is over quickly, but the post mortem evidence shows that foxes suffer multiple injuries before being killed. A great friend—a brave lady who lives in Cumbria—has fought against foxhunting for many years. Yesterday, she found a fox on the doorstep, left there, I suspect, by friends of the Countryside Alliance, who have been ratcheting up their campaign. The fox had obviously been mauled by dogs, so the lady sent it for a post mortem. I look forward to the findings, and wonder whether the hon. 
 Member for East Devon would condemn such behaviour.

Hugo Swire: I have no hesitation in condemning it, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman can substantiate his claim that whoever did this is connected with the Countryside Alliance.

Eric Martlew: The Countryside Alliance's recent press release talks about ratcheting up the campaign. I suspect that some have taken that press release as an example to create pressure, rather like the problems in Parliament square on Second Reading.

James Gray: Let us imagine for one second that people from the Countryside Alliance were seeking to ratchet up the campaign as the hon. Gentleman describes. Why on earth would they take a badly mauled fox carcase and put it on the doorstep of someone they know to oppose hunting? Surely that would ratchet up the campaign in the wrong way and surely it would argue against them. I am certain that I speak for the Countryside Alliance when I say that we wholeheartedly decry any such activity. Doing anything with fox carcases other than giving them to the hounds to be eaten is wrong and the notion that the carcase might have been delivered to an anti-hunting person is absurd.

Eric Martlew: The incident did not happen in my constituency, but has the hon. Gentleman never heard of intimidation? There is no doubt that it goes on, and hon. Members know about it.

Peter Luff: We know that intimidation happens, and there are hotheads on both sides. However, it does the Committee no service to highlight one incident, which, if it happened, is counter-productive to the cause of those who perpetrated it. We reject the actions of hotheads.

Eric Martlew: I am sure the hon. Gentleman accepts that if I stand up in Committee and say that it happened, it happened.

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman has not proved to anyone's satisfaction who did it. Whoever did it was wrong morally and in terms of the argument that they are trying to make.

Eric Martlew: I do not wish to continue along that line, Mrs. Roe. I have not been out of order, but I shall be if I continue. The reality is that if the amendments are accepted, they will go a long way in satisfying those of us who want to end the cruelty of hunting.

James Gray: I shall focus on one point rather than the absurdity and difficulties associated with what is happening in Scotland, which, broadly speaking, the amendment proposes to introduce. The Minister has acknowledged that he does not like what is happening there, but the amendment would have that effect. However, I want to focus on a more fundamental error inherent in the amendment—namely, that if it were accepted, the notion of registered hunting would be ruled out.
 The hon. Member for West Lancashire proposes precisely what is proposed under schedule 1 on exempt hunting. Under the schedule, it would be possible to flush game out of cover to a waiting gun. If the amendment were accepted, hunting of all kinds would 
 no longer be considered by the registrar, whether registered or not, as it would effectively become exempt hunting. That would therefore wreck the Bill by doing away with the notion of the registrar and the tribunal, and, conceivably, registering hunting with a number of dogs for a variety of purposes, which is central to clause 8. 
 If the amendment were agreed to, clause 8 would be worthless and the Bill would be worthless. We would have a Scottish Bill. The amendment would allow the use of only two dogs for flushing foxes out of cover to a waiting gun, but that comes under schedule 1 on exempt hunting. If the hon. Member for West Lancashire is allowed to make his amendment, the Bill will be wrecked from top to toe.

Alan Whitehead: I shall address a few remarks to the centrality of the amendments to the Bill. In that context, I am a little concerned by what is best described as the moral solipsism of some Conservative Members. Moral solipsism, particularly that of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, is an interesting concept. It starts from the premise that one is completely morally right, and that the moral worth of anyone who comes one's way descends by degree, depending on how far away that individual or organisation is from one's own stance on moral worth. That is what I mean by moral solipsism.
 However, a problem arises when that stance becomes involved with the word ''compromise''. It ceases to have any meaning, because the word is defined as that which is closest to one's own moral position.

Edward Garnier: If the position of the opponent is so far away from one's own, that is not a compromise. It is the other side winning the argument. A compromise is presumably a position equidistant from both ends of the argument.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not entirely follow the relationship between the morally solipsistic person and their notion of compromise. Compromise is not as he describes, as the best compromise is a person taking a position as close to one's own as possible. Added to that is the attempt to advocate, on casuistic grounds, that the person making such a statement claims that the Bill is something other than what it is.
 No one who has read the Bill could believe that it would allow hunting roughly as it is, but with a few knobs and twiddles added. Even before being amended, subsections 8(1) and (2) referred to utility, the sequential test and the central question of cruelty that my right hon. Friend the Minister outlined. Therefore, even if the Bill was unamended, the circumstances under which hunting could continue would be different from those that pertained previously. Clause 8 does not include a third sequential test. Indeed, we discussed a suggested third test—a good day out—but the idea was not accepted. 
 The Bill deals sequentially with utility and cruelty, but it is an accommodating Bill inasmuch as it makes 
 substantial provision for the circumstances in which the control of foxes as pests is undertaken. It sets out the terms under which that control should be exercised and the tests relating to it. It also sets out the circumstances in which dogs—it does not say that people cannot be on mounted on horses—may be used for pest control. 
 Amendment No. 222 provides for two dogs, but amendment No. 224 does not; the two dogs argument relates only to individual and, not collective, registration. The amendments are entirely in line with the purport of the Bill, which is to set out the circumstances under which pest control can be carried out, and the way in which the tests of utility and cruelty should be applied. The drafting of the amendments may cause problems in other parts of the Bill, but the attempt to accommodate the hunting of foxes as a means of pest control is not out of line with the fact that one should not charge around the countryside all day long chasing an animal for little or no utility and then kill it. 
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire seems at last to have cottoned on to the idea that there is no chase in this clause because chasing an animal all day is not envisaged in subsections 8(1) or (2). Indeed, when he suggested that chasing animals about all day should be treated as a utility because it was recreation, he was defeated. There is no chase in the Bill because there should not be one. The clause is in line with the architecture and intention of the Bill. The Bill is not the moral fudge that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal wishes for. It is a principled Bill that sets out the circumstances under which hunting foxes as pest control may be carried out.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that there is no chase. Cannot he imagine dogs being put into a 10, 20 or 30-acre forest with the dogs, under the amendment, being put there to flush out the fox to waiting guns? The chase will last for several hundreds of yards or even miles, depending on the size of the forest, before the game reaches the edge of the forest and is shot by the waiting guns. In animal welfare terms, there is no difference between what is proposed in the amendment and what happens now in an ordinary day's foxhunting.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman fails to distinguish between the words ''as soon as possible'' and the word ''found''. The process of locating a fox may involve the animals that are trying to locate the fox chasing it. However, as soon as possible after the fox has been found, the events described in the amendment should take place. What is not envisaged—either in the Bill in subsections 8(1) or (2) or in the amendment—is that once the fox has been found and identified to everyone, a long period of chasing that fox around should ensue, with the eventual result that the fox is killed.

James Gray: The amendment states:
''being found, flushed out or captured''.
 The words ''flushed out'' mean that the fox has been found in cover in a thick wood, which may be as large as 30 acres, and is flushed out of the wood to waiting 
 guns. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is suggesting something even more bizarre, which is that the guns should be waiting in the wood.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the comma between ''found'' and ''flushed out''. There are different categories under which the fox may be deal with, depending on whether it has been found, whether it has been flushed out as the hon. Gentleman described or whether it has been captured. However, once that point is reached the mammal should be shot dead by a competent person as soon as possible. What is not envisaged is that the fox should be sent on a run, in the name of having a good day out, and that the time between the fox being found, flushed out or captured therefore is extended. That is one of the central points relating to cruelty in the Bill and the amendment.
Mr. Gray rose—

Alan Whitehead: I have given way too many times and I am about to sit down, but I shall give way once more because I am extremely nice.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman has been extremely generous in giving way.
 No one is talking about a good day out. That has already been outlawed under clause 8. There is no such utility as having a good day out. We are discussing the means by which the hon. Gentleman's utility of pest control is handled. He has admitted that flushing out could involve the fox being chased for a significant distance before it reaches the edge of the wood where the guns are waiting. Why, in animal welfare terms, is that any different from what is proposed in the Bill?

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman and I appear to agree substantially, which is a delight to know. The phrase in the amendment is ''as soon as possible'', which means that there is no extended period between the events described in the Bill of the fox being found, flushed out or captured and being dispatched. That simply underlines, as the hon. Gentleman has accepted, that a good day out is not in the Bill and, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal seems to suggest, never was. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire should be pleased to support the amendment on the ground that it makes clear what is in the overall architecture of the Bill.

Peter Luff: I genuinely look forward to hearing what the Minister says about the impact of the amendments, because I am far from clear about it. As I understand it, the provisions that they contain are remarkably similar to those in the Scottish legislation, which, as we discussed earlier, has effectively enabled the continuation of mounted hunts, with the qualification that foxes are now generally shot and often wounded, whereas before they were cleanly killed. Does the Minister think that the amendments contain the flaws that he has had the courage and honesty to admit exist in the Scottish legislation?
 Clearly the intent of the amendments is to outlaw the chase—I believe that that is what the hon. Members who tabled them are trying to do—and that is a matter of contention. I shall not get into that debate now, but I recognise that for many people the 
 chase is the problem in hunting. I believe that they are wrong and that that is an anthropomorphic interpretation. I would not go so far as some people and say that the fox enjoys being chased, which is equally ludicrous, but the human emotion of fear is different from the fox's instinctive reaction for its own preservation. However, we will not agree across the Committee on that. I believe that Government Members are wrong and that some Opposition Members overstate the case, but I do not believe that the chase is wrong. 
 I have some practical worries about the impact of the amendments, one of which I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for West Lancashire reject. As I understand it, the Scottish legislation—I do not have it in front of me, so the Minister may be able to correct me—specifically permits terrier work. I do not hunt and, unlike others, I cannot even get near a horse, so I am an amateur in these matters, but many of my friends who hunt do not like terrier work. Friends who have occupied senior positions in hunts in my constituency and around it have told me that they would like to see the end of terrier work, but ultimately terriers do control foxes. When the fox goes to ground, the only way to get it out is with terriers, so my friends reluctantly accept it. 
 I accept that, if the chase were to be curbed, foxes would be in a different situation, but wounding of foxes occurs by shooting, and sometimes it is possible to see where the wounded fox has gone. As I understand it, the Scottish legislation specifically allows a wounded fox that has gone to ground to be flushed out or even killed underground by the terrier. Death is not nice, but that kind of death is preferable to the lingering death that the fox would otherwise experience. Therefore, I urge Government Members to think carefully about the animal welfare implications of their amendments, because the hon. Gentlemen may be wrong. 
 I remind hon. Gentlemen how difficult shooting a fox is. Members of the Committee will have received from Lt. Col. Richard James an account of his experience of trying to shoot foxes in the kind of situation that will arise if the amendment is accepted. His letter says: 
 ''You will be aware that the RSPCA recommends that where fox numbers need to be controlled, it should be conducted with high-powered rifles at night under lamplight. This so-called 'Lamping' might well be humane but it equally poses a direct threat to human life. These rifles are capable of killing humans a mile or more away and there is no way of knowing where a bullet will land, not least when it is fired at a fleeting target at night. This is precisely why Lamping is forbidden on all of the MoD estate.''

Eric Martlew: How many incidents of that kind have taken place in the past 10 years?

Peter Luff: Perhaps it is because such activity is banned on the Ministry of Defence estate that it has not happened more. What I was going to say is that in practice most foxes are killed with shotguns. That is certainly what happens in and around my constituency. I have an interesting article, with which
 I will not bore the Committee, because it would take my remarks too far from the amendments. However, I am grateful to Laurence Kay of Newark for sending me the article from The Countryman's Weekly, which sets out, for the benefit of those who want to shoot foxes, how difficult it is and how to go about it. It gives strength to amendment No. 39, which is an attempt at defining a competent person. It is clearly much more difficult to shoot foxes than some people have been cavalierly assuming in the debate.
 Perhaps more pertinent to the amendments is what Lieutenant Colonel Richard James says. 
''Clearly the MoD is a leading authority in this area. Recent experience in Kosovo, in which I was involved, demonstrated that culling the feral dog population with shotguns''—
 dogs are generally a good deal smaller than foxes— 
''led to a large number of wounded animals, which had to be tracked down before being dispatched. This ties in with the available evidence on controlling foxes with shotguns. The use of high-powered rifles was deemed too dangerous in Kosovo, even in the rural north of the country using trained military marksmen.''
 That is powerful and compelling evidence about the problems of shooting. There are problems with wounded foxes that go to ground. I humbly submit to the hon. Member for West Lancashire that even if the spirit of what he wanted to do—ending the chase—was one on which the Committee could agree, which it is not, the first consequence of the amendment would be to damage the welfare of the fox, the animal that he wants to protect. 
 I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West who said—I think it was he who said it—that a different test for individual and group registration would be helpful. However, I should want an assurance from the Minister that were he minded to accept the amendments, which I hope he is not, they would not have an adverse consequence. I explained earlier, at some length, the need for large numbers of dogs to deal with rogue foxes, and cited the case of Trawscoed farm in Powys, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, where a large number of dogs were needed to track down a rogue fox that was doing great damage there. I have the details of that.

James Gray: Leaving aside the rogue fox—we have shot that fox already this afternoon, I think—a more important point is that, in Wales, for example, which has extremely large forested areas, it would not be possible to find and flush out a fox using two dogs. A large number of dogs would be needed to get the fox out of cover. That is the experience in Scotland. What is proposed would make the flushing out or killing of foxes with dogs impossible.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend has already given some compelling statistics on this. The requirement for the use of two dogs is laughable. The phrase that keeps occurring in briefings that I have received from different organisations is ''needle in a haystack''. I do not regard the amendment as at all helpful. It is a wrecking amendment. I do not think that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) is in his place at the moment. He said on Second Reading that, in his
 constituency, two dogs were routinely used. A long letter that he has received from the master of the Ynys Môn hunt makes matters perfectly clear. It states:
''We always use between ten and fifteen foxhounds to search for and hunt foxes from cover, accompanied by a number of people using shotguns to kill the foxes. In a normal season between 60 and 70 per cent. of foxes culled would be killed by the shooters, the balance being killed by the hounds either before or after shooting. A significant proportion (30 per cent.) are culled by use of terriers underground.''
 He continues: 
''Farmers in your constituency have over generations tried a number of different methods for the control of foxes. None are perfect but the combination is the closest system we have to satisfactory and generally keeps the population managed at a level that your agricultural constituents can cope with. I think it is also prudent to mention that a Fox Control Society has existed on Ynys Môn since 1974 due to the need to control the vulpine population. In addition, there are several hundred individual operators who use terriers and lurchers throughout the winter months to meet the demand of control.''

Colin Pickthall: Given the description that the hon. Gentleman has just read out, what would be the effective difference between what is described in the letter and what would still be allowable under group registration?

Peter Luff: I want to be very certain about how group registration would work, as I have said. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is making a fair point. I want to be absolutely certain that were the amendments accepted—despite their adverse animal welfare consequences—they would still leave farmers like those in Ynys Môn and Montgomeryshire with the ability to control the fox population. I strongly suspect that they would not, and that they could have the adverse consequences that I have stated.
 I will not labour the point, although I could go on at length, because this goes to the heart of our crucial debate; the myth that shooting is the answer to all our prayers. It is not. It is generally the crueller way to kill foxes, as I am sure the Middle Way Group's research on wounding rates from shooting will shortly demonstrate.

Rob Marris: Perhaps to the surprise of the hon. Member who moved it, I rise to speak in support of the spirit of amendment No. 39. I am concerned about the words ''competent person'' in the Bill. I cannot find the phrase in the interpretation clause or discover from anywhere else in the Bill what it means. The amendment is perhaps too narrow. I am also conscious that if it were wider, with more matters specified, there would be the risk of a huge bureaucracy. But I should like reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister on the meaning of ''competent person'' and whether there will be, for example, an amendment to the interpretation clause fleshing out—not flushing out—what ''competent person'' is intended to mean and what it does mean.

Edward Garnier: I am glad that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has just said what he did, because I too am a little confused about the definition of ''competent person''. To that extent, I am helped by the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, because at least it
 provides some identifiable people who will be able to import their judgment into the matter. If it has to be done, I am happy that it should be done by the people listed in my hon. Friend's amendment, which I support.
 I am concerned that once the master, the constable or the officer at the British Association for Shooting and Conservation has issued a certificate, made a declaration or whatever it is, saying that such and such a person is a competent shot, the so-called animal welfare organisations will then challenge that decision, either before the registrar or before the tribunal. So we shall go on and have further and further shenanigans as this hunting battle is continued in another forum. It is tedious enough in this Room, but to have an argument about the merits or demerits of methods of controlling fox populations balanced on the words ''competent shot'' or ''competent person'' under clause 27(2)(b) is inviting trouble. 
 If the Government disagree with my hon. Friend's amendment, I urge them to be a little more specific in the way in which ''competent person'' is defined, and to make it quite clear that once that definition has been arrived at and met, the so-called animal welfare groups should not be entitled to interfere. 
 I turn to amendments Nos. 222 and 224. Much that is destructive of them has already been said, and I do not need to take the Committee back to those earlier remarks, but I am concerned that the amendments will compromise the welfare of the dogs. Those fears are heightened more under amendment No. 224 than under amendment No. 222, because at least under amendment No. 222 we are concerned only with two dogs. But in neither case are we told what the supporters of the amendments consider ''close control'' to be. We see in subsection (a) of each amendment that 
''each dog used in the hunting is kept under close control''.
 I assume that the supporters of amendment No. 222 think that the individual with no more than two dogs should have them on a long lead—perhaps one of those stretchy leads—so that they can be kept under close control at all times while trying to find the quarry species. Clearly, if those concerned are against the chase, they would not like the individual or pair of dogs to be let off the leash so that they could chase the quarry species. That would be deeply offensive to the amendment's supporters. However, reality tells me that either they have not thought about it, or this is a mischievous amendment. 
 Amendment No. 224 deals with a group registration and the number of dogs is not limited to two. If I take the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire of the fox control organisation in Anglesey, where the master or responsible officer said that between 10 and 15 couple—

Peter Luff: It was 15 hounds.

Edward Garnier: Okay; 15 hounds are used in the exercise. It would be bonkers to expect ''close control'' to mean anything other than ''under the control of the hunt servant or the responsible officer dealing with the pack''; not on leads.

Peter Luff: My hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful point. Will he invite the hon. Gentleman who tabled the amendments to explain why two is a magic figure for individual registration? I was out shooting on Saturday with a gamekeeper who had five springer spaniels, which are difficult animals to control, and he had them under very close control. What is special about two?

Edward Garnier: It is probably as far as he could count. These figures seem to be pulled out of the air. It might be that the hon. Gentleman thinks that to have more than two dogs per individual is greedy. One does not know if one is not told. Perhaps it is thought that an individual can keep only two dogs under control. The experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and others, including me, demonstrates that the supporters of the amendment are ignorant of what happens in the real world beyond the M25—[Interruption]. I am glad to see that they are still awake.
 I want to ask those who tabled the amendment to consider the picture in which the 14 or 15 hounds used in the Ynys Môn example are put into a wood. They find the quarry species and they flush it out. The quarry is not going to sit there and say, ''Thanks a lot, I am yours for the taking.'' It is going to move off at some speed. It will be followed—because that is how nature dictates the behaviour of dogs—by the hounds, because they can either see it or follow its scent. Eventually, depending on the size of the cover, the quarry—in this case a fox—will leave it, and will be met, under the proposed amendment, by a line of guns ready to shoot it. 
 I suspect that, not very far behind the fox, will be the 10 or more hounds that have found it and flushed it out and are intent—as nature dictates—on catching it. I do not know how many guns are expected to be there. If there are marksmen taking pot-shots at the fleeing fox, the pursuing dogs will be placed in some form of danger. That is not a happy situation because, far from the fox being killed, the dogs will be killed.

Hugo Swire: Is it my hon. and learned Friend's understanding, as it is mine, that to qualify as exempt hunting in that situation, an attempt must always be made to shoot the flushed or stalked animal to avoid committing an offence?

Edward Garnier: I have to confess that I do not have schedule 1 to the front of my mind just now, but I am sure that the point made by my hon. Friend is worth considering, either later today or at another stage of our proceedings.
 However, from the remarks that I an others have made, it is clear that amendments Nos. 222 and 224 are based upon a misconception of the natural behaviour of dogs and foxes and the ability of people to shoot accurately with a rifle or shotgun at a moving target. Far from increasing the welfare of the fox or the dogs, or assisting in pest control, the two amendments will do precisely the opposite and lead to tears before bedtime.

Alun Michael: To start off, I should like to tell the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) that I, too, would prefer to be in the Chamber giving attention to
 the situation in Iraq, and I am sure that the same applies to many of my hon. Friends. Indeed, I should like to attend to many parts of my job that I consider to be of far greater importance than this issue, but in Government and in Parliament we all occasionally find ourselves dealing with day-to-day issues at a time of high drama elsewhere and, in that sense, we all serve. [Interruption.] I do not want to deal again with the fact that the issue has been regarded as important by the House of Commons on several occasions and as something with which we must deal.

Eric Martlew: The reality is, of course, that if Bills had got through the other place on any one of three past occasions, we would not be here today. We are here only because friends of the Opposition have blocked three attempts at the Bill.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend draws attention in a different way to the fact that the House has debated the matter under a variety of circumstances. As I have said in the past, Members on both sides of the argument have turned up in droves to debate the issue, which Parliament must resolve.

Peter Luff: The Minister is an accurate man, although we sometimes disagree about the results of our facts. He will acknowledge that the Bill of the hon. Member for Worcester never made it to the House of Lords, and the last options Bill ran out of time because of the election. Only one Bill has made it to the House of Lords in recent history.

Alun Michael: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be accurate, he will recall that a Bill reached the House of Lords during the course of the last Parliament with sufficient time to pass through the procedures. However, my point was about the extent to which Members of the House of Commons have enthusiastically turned up whenever an opportunity has arisen to debate the issue. That indicates that the matter must be resolved, but the strong passion that it arouses also demonstrates the difficulty in dealing with it in an orderly manner and making good law.
 In a sense, this is becoming a Second Reading debate, so I shall not pursue the matter further. I mentioned it because the hon. Member for East Devon suggested, almost as though he was unique in this Room, that he would prefer to be attending to other business. However, I am sure that he, like everyone else, wishes to deal properly with the business that is before the Committee. 
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire suggested that the Bill would ban ''a good day out''. I know that some comments are casual, throwaway remarks and a bit of banter, but I make the point yet again that the Bill does no such thing. It makes clear the purposes and limits within which particular activities can be undertaken in hunting with dogs.

James Gray: The Minister misquotes me. I was reacting to an intervention from one of his hon. Friends, who said that I believed that a good day out would still be possible. I was pointing out that, because of the removal of sport and recreation from the utility definitions in clause 8, we are not talking
 about a good day out, but about pest control. I do not see why he thinks that the amendment makes the Bill any better.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the words that he used, which were specifically that the Bill bans a good day out.
 The hon. Gentleman said something else revealing. He made it clear that he speaks for the Countryside Alliance. In answer to the comments of one or two of my hon. Friends about some rather unpleasant attempts at intimidation, he suggested that the alliance had not indicated an intention to ratchet up its campaign. I hope that that is so, but a press release from the alliance indicated its intention to ratchet up its activities. If the hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the alliance, were to indicate that it is to enter into debate on the Bill rather than engaging in activities of the sort about which my hon. Friends expressed concern, that would be extremely welcome.

James Gray: The Minister should focus on some of the difficult matters before the Committee, rather than misquoting me. I was speaking about the allegation that a dead fox had been put on someone's doorstep in Scotland or wherever—

Eric Martlew: Somewhere up north—[Laughter.]

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman said somewhere up north. He, too, is unsure where it was. In answer to the allegation that the Countryside Alliance put a dead fox on someone's doorstep somewhere up north, I said that I was certain that I could speak for the alliance in saying that the incident had nothing to do with the alliance. Under no circumstances would I speak for the Countryside Alliance on other matters.

Alun Michael: The record will show what the hon. Gentleman said. Every time one of my hon. Friends mentions the hon. Gentleman's words and quotes them accurately, he gets excited. If my hon. Friends contest anything, he says, ''Oh, they are getting excited, I must have hit a target.'' I think that I have hit a target.

Edward Garnier: Let us not bandy words like this. I suggest that all Conservative members of the Committee support and are nourished by the ideas and information given to us by the Countryside Alliance. I am happy to be accused of speaking for it; it has no voice in Parliament except through MPs—just as the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the League Against Cruel Sports and the other little groups on the other side of the argument have no voice in Parliament except through those Members with whom they have an interest in common. I am happy and proud to support the views of the Countryside Alliance. To a large extent, they coincide with the views of my constituents.

Marion Roe: Order. We are going a little wide of the amendment. I ask hon. Members to focus on that.

Alun Michael: I am happy to do so, Mrs. Roe, but I first give credit to the hon. and learned Gentleman for making his position clear. I applaud some of the activities of the Countryside Alliance, such as its promotion of rural tourism and the food fortnight. I
 have been willing to listen to what it has to say as I listen to organisations on all sides of the argument.
 Clauses 27 and 28 are important because they require that when hunting is registered it is undertaken in a way that avoids cruelty. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire made it clear when moving the amendment that his purpose is to ensure that registered activities cannot be carried out in a cruel manner, and I have a good deal of sympathy with that. I am not entirely content with the impact of the amendment, however, and I hope that he will not press it to a Division. Nevertheless, the idea of seeking to eradicate cruelty in such activities certainly runs with the intentions of the clauses. 
 Amendment No. 222 would require that ''reasonable steps are taken'' to ensure that once the mammal is 
''found, flushed out or captured'',
 it is shot dead, that no more than two dogs are used and that they are not used underground. I am not convinced that the amendment would always have the intended effect. The requirement that all wild animals hunted by dogs be shot could prejudge the least suffering test. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not intend a perverse outcome, but a requirement intended to eradicate cruelty could result in more suffering being caused than if dogs were used to make the kill. In some areas, shooting, with the risk of wounding, may not be a reliable or humane means of controlling wild animal numbers. 
 My hon. Friend rightly referred to findings in the Burns report that suggested a variety of circumstances in which shooting would be the preferred method, but that is not the same as saying that it is universally likely to be the most satisfactory method. I accept that he has studied the matter, and is not convinced that the perverse outcome that I referred to is likely, but some uncertainty was expressed in the Burns report, and I ask him to bear that in mind. 
 The least suffering test in clause 8 requires that the chase be kept to the minimum necessary because of the way in which clauses 27 and 28 are framed. A registered individual or group who sought to prolong the chase beyond the time necessary to achieve the pest control aim of hunting would almost certainly be unable to meet the least suffering test, as any method involving a shorter chase would clearly cause less suffering. 
 There are a number of unintended consequences. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred to the Scottish legislation and the use of dogs below ground. Section 23 of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 makes an exception from the main offence of hunting with dogs to allow dogs to be used to flush a fox or mink from below ground. However, that is subject to detailed conditions, such as shooting the animal as soon as it is flushed. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the Scottish Act permits dogs to be used below ground for flushing out foxes or mink, but it imposes no limit on the number of dogs that can be used. 
 A question was raised about schedule 1. A person seeking to undertake an activity who wanted to use 
 dogs below ground would need to be registered, so they would have to show a need to undertake the activity; they would have to bring forward evidence and meet the tests of clause 8. They would need to satisfy the registrar and the tribunal. 
 Amendment No. 39 seeks to define a competent person for the purposes of shooting a wild mammal at the conclusion of a hunt. Competence, as hon. Members have suggested, is not always easy to define. It needs to be determined on the facts of the case, and it will reflect the appropriateness of the experience, skill and qualifications of the marksman against the difficulty of the shooting that needs to be carried out. That will vary between different species of animal, and as a result of local factors. That is why the Bill does not specify a single standard of competency, nor a single authority to determine it. Competence will best be assessed by the registrar or the tribunal on the facts of the application when compliance with the automatic condition is called into question. 
 In contrast, under the amendment, competence would be determined by the master of a recognised hunt, by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation or by a constable. It seems odd to suggest that those individuals, rather than the registrar or the tribunal, should take the decision. There is nothing to stop a master of the hunt determining whether an individual is competent to shoot a wild mammal. One might have thought that a master would automatically do so, but his views will not be the last word on the matter. The registrar and the tribunal are better placed to have the ultimate say on the question of competence.

Hugo Swire: On what evidence would the registrar or the tribunal depend to ascertain whether an individual is competent, as opposed to someone who might know that individual locally, be that person a constable or a master of foxhounds?

Alun Michael: I am not clear that a master or a constable would be in a position to make that judgment at all. If there is a need in the Bill to demonstrate the level of competence, it is sensible for the registrar or the tribunal to be the judge and to call on expert advice if necessary. Provision is made in the Bill for that, so the point is dealt with satisfactorily.
 On the second option, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation has told me that it would not want to be asked to play a part in determining competence for these purposes. The association does a great deal to improve standards and competences in things such as training and setting qualifications. I have discussed the issue with the association recently, and I am sure that its activities will continue against that background. 
 Finally, the police are not necessarily in a position to make a judgment on competence. Some officers may be, purely because of their knowledge and expertise. However, Opposition Members keep telling us that they have deep concern about responsibilities, especially bureaucratic responsibilities, being placed on the shoulders of the police, and here is an 
 opportunity for us to avoid imposing an inappropriate burden on the police. 
 The contributions of some hon. Members have gone wider than the amendments, although that always seems to be the case. I entirely respect the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire has addressed the heart of clauses 27 and 28, the aim of which is to minimise suffering by ensuring that those activities that are approved are performed to the standard of least cruelty, which is what the Bill is all about. One or two of the issues that he raised are worthy of further consideration, but the amendment might have unintended consequences, some of which would be perverse and some of which would lead to onerous or bureaucratic requirements. I am certainly happy to consider his concerns and any other points that he wants to make. However, I urge him not to press the amendment, which he moved so reasonably.

Colin Pickthall: I always try to do such things reasonably. I said at the beginning that I was seeking and will seek to toughen and tighten part 2. Having said that, I still have reservations about part 2 as a whole, and it will be interesting to see exactly where we stand on that at the end of our debate.
 Some interesting points have been made, not least by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, whose vision is of a countryside full of uncontrollable dogs and no one who can shoot straight. However, he asks what the amendment means by ''close control'' of dogs. I take it to be, at the least, the ability to call dogs off at the appropriate moment.

Peter Luff: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will want to return to the subject later. He may like to know that the Scottish legislation defines control in a way that I think he would find helpful and probably generally acceptable.

Colin Pickthall: The hon. Gentleman is right. I had forgotten that. We may be able to come back to that.
 I agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that, in the light of the amendments made so far, particularly to clause 8, we are now talking about pest control. These amendments would make that even clearer. I also agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, who said that he dislikes the anthropomorphism that creeps into our arguments. I do, equally. He rightly put to me the contrast between a fox being wounded and going into a hole to die and a fox being wounded, going into a hole being chased by a terrier and killed. Which death is worse I do not know, and there is no way that we will ever be able to tell, because we cannot enter animals' minds. However, I suspect that death in a hole, face to face with a terrier, would take some beating as a way to go. 
 My right hon. Friend the Minister said that he has sympathy with one or two points in the amendments and that he would look at them again. He did not identify those points, but I hope that he concentrates, 
 again, on the chase. It is a tricky issue, but we must tease out the difference between a chase that is the main purpose of the activity and one that is necessary to destroy a pest. We must be careful to differentiate between the two. As Opposition Members have said, some distance may have to be covered before a nuisance is chased down and destroyed, but that is different from the chase being used as an activity in its own right. That is the first point that I hope my right hon. Friend ensures is watertight. 
 The second point relates to terrier work. The exemptions taken together may be a belt-and-braces exercise, but I hope that my right hon. Friend ensures that everything to do with terrier work in the Bill is eradicated. 
 My right hon. Friend referred to unintended consequences—I understand what he is saying—and to difficulties that might arise from the amendments. He also said that they could prejudice the least suffering test. I take that point. In the certainty that he will chase those matters up, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colin Pickthall: I beg to move amendment No. 223, in
clause 27, page 10, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert— 
 '( ) The fourth condition is that the registered individual carries with him written evidence of the permission referred to in subsection (2)(d) and evidence of his registration (in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State) and produces these, on request, to a constable or to an inspector as mentioned in subsection (3).'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 290, in 
clause 28, page 11, line 4, leave out subsection (5).
 Amendment No. 225, in 
clause 28, page 11, line 6, leave out '(whether registered or not)'.
 Amendment No. 226, in 
clause 28, page 11, line 9, at end insert 
 'and a further six months after the registration ends'. 
 Amendment No. 289, in 
 clause 28, page 11, line 9, at end insert— 
 'Provided that only the registrar or Tribunal may have access to the record without the express consent of all those whose details are listed in the record.'.
 Amendment No. 228, in 
clause 28, page 11, line 19, at end add— 
 '(7) The sixth condition is that at least one of the individuals participating in the hunting carries with him written evidence of the permission referred to in section 28(2)(c) and evidence of the group registration (in such form as may be prescribed) and that these are produced, on request, to a constable or to an inspector as mentioned in subsection (3). 
 (8) The seventh condition is that there is submitted to the registrar within 14 days after the hunting in question a report in such form as may be prescribed and which must— 
 (a) identify the individuals who participated in the hunting, 
 (b) identify the purpose for which and place where the hunting took place, 
 (c) state what wild mammals (if any) were found or killed, and 
 (d) contain such other information as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. 
 (9) In this section, ''prescribed'' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.
 Amendment No. 248, in 
clause 38, page 15, line 14, after 'registration', insert 
 'and for six months after the end of the registration'.
 Amendment No. 249, in 
clause 38, page 15, leave out lines 16 to 18.

Colin Pickthall: I am sorry, Mrs. Roe, that I am again standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean.
 This is a disparate group of amendments. I want to speak briefly to amendment No. 223, which says, in brief, that written evidence should be carried by those engaged in hunting—I shall return to that—and amendment No. 225, which would remove the words ''(whether registered or not)'' from clause 28(5)(a). I shall not dwell on that, because it is consequential on amendment No. 261, which would leave out clause 2(3). I agree with that amendment—amendment No. 225 fits logically with it. I find it rather difficult to get my head around consequential amendments that are anticipatory, because of the order in which we are considering the Bill. It is like performing in a J.B. Priestly play. 
 Amendment No. 226 would add six months to the period for which a record is retained after the registration ends, and amendment No. 228 would add further conditions for group registration. That amendment relates to clause 28, and is the most important in the group, as it would add two further conditions. This fairly straightforward and technical amendment is an attempt to make the enforcement of registration easier. If individuals carried written evidence of permission to be on the land, that would make it possible for an enforcement officer to do his job quickly and efficiently. It would also help to weed out illegal coursers.

Edward Garnier: Is the hon. Gentleman also proposing that the driving laws should be changed to make it compulsory for every driver to carry his licence and insurance?

Colin Pickthall: It would be out of order to propose that, Mrs. Roe, but I do not find the idea too objectionable.
 The conditions would also ensure that the registrar could adequately assess the results and effectiveness of his decision, and also deter those who were registered from accidentally or deliberately allowing the permitted scale of the use of dogs to expand to include casuals and passers-by. Further, they would deter them from hunting other mammals. 
 The records that must be kept in Northern Ireland already prefigure the recording of hare coursing events. Although coursing occurs on a smaller scale there, the records are kept in enormous detail and that does not seem to cause great difficulty. 
 Amendment No. 226 would require the registrar to keep records for six months after the registration ends. That is important for many reasons, including the fact 
 that re-registration might come after a break in the period in which hunting takes place. If the records are to be of any practical use to a constable, they must be retained.

Peter Luff: The Middle Way Group is interested in all those proposals, because there seems to be a great tidal wave of bureaucracy sweeping over hunting. We were criticised by Labour Members for precisely that, which is why we refined our proposals so much. For example, why do we need to submit to the registrar details of every hunt that has taken place? That is a huge and bureaucratic item. Why in particular must someone carry with him the evidence for that hunting—a great folder quite often? I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough: why can such a person not at least have the information in the car and why must he carry it with him?

Colin Pickthall: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to the end of the day. He spoke so quickly that I missed the middle part of what he said, although I picked up a question at the end. I assume that a hunting activity could take place over quite an area of ground. Indeed, in discussing the last group of amendments, he and his hon. Friends made some play of the fact that there are large tracts of land to be covered.
 For example, it may be suspected that something is going wrong with a hunt, and a report or a telephone call may be made. There was such an example in my constituency. Two illegal hare coursers were spotted just outside Altcar by a parish councillor, who rang the police. The police arrived—they do not always fail to do so—and nabbed two characters from Greater Manchester, who eventually were prosecuted. 
 It was found to be difficult to prosecute them, however, because the owner of the land had to be tracked and all that business. Had they been legitimate and carrying their registration documents, that would have been the end of the story if they had been challenged by the parish councillor, although making such a challenge is always a pretty hairy thing to do, or by the police on the ground. If they are registered, what is the problem? 
 If I had gone to the trouble of going through the bureaucracy, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire describes it, to obtain a licence, I should be delighted to carry it with me and flourish it, because it would keep me out of any danger of possible challenge by police, inspectors or whoever. I do not see it as an onerous bureaucracy. A licence is something we put in our pocket or wallet and carry when we are about our business. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Peter Luff: I do not agree. In particular, having evidence of permission from the landowner would typically mean evidence from more than one landowner—often a large number. The hon. Gentleman could be asking for quite a file. Would it not at least be all right for the person concerned to say, ''I'll take you back to my car,'' or, ''You'll get it within the hour or later today''? Why must such a person
 have the evidence with him? That would be an onerous requirement, and I suspect the motive.

Colin Pickthall: It would be much worse for the person concerned if he had to say, ''I'll have to go half a mile down the road to my car to show you this,'' or, ''I'll bring it round.'' What is proposed is perfectly straightforward, sensible and not onerous at all. It would simply add a little extra to the provisions, which would cause nobody any extra burden.

Andrew George: I shall be extremely brief, because I know that many Members want us to conclude the sitting soon.
 Amendments Nos. 248 and 249, which stand in my name, are intended as tidying mechanisms. I hope that the Minister accepts them at face value or returns with Government amendments at an appropriate stage. 
 With regard to amendment No. 248, it is obvious that records should be kept for a reasonable period at the end of registration, and I do not think that I need to explain that. The defence in clause 38 that an individual ''reasonably believed'' that a record had been kept seems to me to be slightly flimsy. There is concern on both sides of the Committee that there is a climate of cynicism as to how registration may work. It is important for the hunt, the registrar and the good name of the law that that be tightened up significantly.

Hugo Swire: I could not disagree more with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). The amendments, his included, are not just tidying-up provisions. They have serious implications, not least the message that they send. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire that this rag-bag of amendments would create a bureaucratic nightmare in the Kafkaesque world that we are being invited to inhabit.
 I shall deal with the amendments in order. Amendment No. 223 would introduce yet more bureaucracy in that it goes counter to the Government's proposal involving two people, whether they are registered or not. It would create a new fourth condition requiring registered individuals to carry with them written evidence of the land occupier's permission, plus evidence of registration to be produced at the request of a constable or an inspector. 
 That is an illiberal amendment. The limit on the number of people who can participate is addressed by our amendment No. 290, in which we seek to remove subsection (5) because we cannot fathom why it should be impossible for a registered gamekeeper going about his business to be joined by other gamekeepers. I suspect that there is a feeling that if people go about their business in a group, that may constitute fun rather than utility, and fun is something that we are no longer allowed. If we want to control foxes in the most utilitarian manner, we should consider how gamekeepers have traditionally done it. It is common for them to go out together with terriers, and perhaps 
 a lurcher or two, to dispatch the flushed fox. I do not see how the amendment would help animal welfare. 
 The amendment also requires the registered individual to carry written permission for access from the landowner and a copy of relevant registration documents. The parliamentary draftsman did not consider that necessary and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, why should not we use the same procedure as that used for a driving licence? Why, if a person is detained on somebody's land, could they not be asked to produce the licence within, say, five to 10 days? We need to examine the matter more closely, and I support amendment No. 290, which puts no limit on the number of people who can work together. 
 Lot 225—[Laughter.] I am sorry; I am slipping back into my old ways because later on I shall be conducting an auction on behalf of Macmillan cancer relief, which is well supported by hon. Members of all parties. If any Member wants to make an absent bid, I shall take it with me. I must remind myself that I am still in Committee and having a deeply enjoyable time. 
 I am starting and concluding the bidding on amendment No. 225, which would omit from clause 28(5) the words ''whether registered or not''. That touches on another important point. The Minister has yet to clarify what he means by participants in a hunt. Is it simply the huntsmen, or is it children following on ponies, elderly people in cars or families who turn up to watch the meet in a market square on Boxing day? More crucially, is it those who follow the hunt—for instance, tourists on Dartmoor—and who behave in a way that does not fit with what is allowed under the registration? Will those who are registered be held responsible for the behaviour of such people? The effect of the amendment is unclear. If ''participant'' is interpreted in the broadest possible sense, it would require everybody who watched a meet, such as those whom I have described, to have their identities recorded. 
 Amendment No. 226 relates to the continuation of information storage after registration. I am not convinced by the point made by the hon. Member for West Lancashire, who said that it will be necessary to keep the records for longer—a further six months—because people might re-register during that period. He also suggested that the records may have some vague practical use, but he did not enlighten us as to what that might be. It is clear that if a hunt or hunt participant is involved in a breach of registration conditions, the appropriate authorities will deal with the matter reasonably swiftly, and certainly much more quickly than the amendment would require. I was pleased earlier this afternoon when the Minister said that the tribunal and the registrar would be obliged to reach decisions quickly. That is most welcome. 
 Amendment No. 289 goes into detail about who may have access to the record without the consent of those whose details are listed. No doubt the Data Protection Act 1998 will have some bearing on that. There are concerns about the release of people's details for public inspection; that should not be done unless it 
 is sanctioned. Some Members of the House are involved, for one reason or another, in various Committees and it has been suggested that they should not broadcast where they live; they may also hunt, in which case a record of where they live would be publicly available, which would not be welcome. I do not see why some people should be exonerated when others are not, but no doubt that will be the suggestion.

James Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware of the worrying report in today's Daily Mirror, which quotes Annette Crosbie, the new president of the League Against Cruel Sports, speaking up fiercely against Huntingdon Life Sciences? She says that the important thing is to
''frighten the banks into backing off''.
 She continues: 
''You cannot get politicians to pay attention until you get out on the streets and do something.''
 That is the president of the LACS, and the sort of person to whom names and addresses would be revealed.

Hugo Swire: I strongly believe that what that lady has in mind probably exceeds having a mask nailed to a door by an unknown body. Incidentally, the Minister still seemed to be suggesting that perhaps the Countryside Alliance had some role in that, which is regrettable.

Judy Mallaber: Does the hon. Gentleman think it reasonable to cast a completely unwarranted slur on the new president of the LACS, of whom I have no knowledge, while protesting about comments made about the Countryside Alliance?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Lady has been in and out today—no doubt she has been busily employed elsewhere. It was not a slur; it was a quote. Furthermore, I do not believe that that good lady was seeking the names and addresses of those who hunt so that she could ring up and come round to do some relief cooking and cleaning. One has to take a fairly cynical view.

James Gray: It was a direct quote from the Daily Mirror. As evidence of the link between the violence against Huntingdon Life Sciences and the LACS I cite the case of David Blenkinsop, who was recently jailed for three years for attacking Huntingdon Life Sciences and bound over for a year for assaulting Mark Bycroft, the huntsman of the Old Surrey, Burstow and West Kent hunt. The same man did both those things.

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The polarised parties on both sides of the debate are probably capable of doing some very nasty things. The evidence to date—the intimidation of employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences and people involved in factory-food production—suggests that those on the extremes of each side are not nice people. We should be open-minded when we talk about releasing our details and addresses to them.
 Amendment No. 228 imposes another draconian requirement on the hunt by insisting on a written report, adding to the bureaucratic nightmare. All of 
 this is designed to ratchet up the difficulties for hunters and so discourage them from registering. The amendments would make it impossible for hunts to operate. The two amendments in the name of the hon. Member for St. Ives are uncharacteristically illiberal, particularly amendment No. 249, which does not give the benefit of the doubt to those who might be under the mistaken belief that they were covered. People make genuine mistakes, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that. This is not weak drafting; people will not use it as a ploy to do what they should not. I do not understand the need for draconian measures to censure people rather harshly for what might be only an oversight.

Andrew George: Even the hon. Gentleman will accept that clause (38)(2) is open to abuse. Of course we hope that all those involved in keeping hunt records would be honourable; nevertheless, subsection (2) is open to abuse. There is no guidance on what evidence someone would have to present to show that they genuinely believed that records had been kept.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman is partially right. However, the Bill leaves so much open to question that some people following a hunt will not realise that they are supposed to be covered, or they may know that they should be registered but will assume that somebody else has done it for them, only to find that that has not happened. They will then be liable to prosecution. Given the uncertainty about how the Bill will work, or fail to work, it is necessary to leave in a provision to allow people to protest their innocence if they have made an honest mistake. They would have to convince whoever was prosecuting them that their mistake was genuine.
 In conclusion, I apologise for beginning my small speech as an auction. It is not an auction but the views of one who is most concerned about the effects of the amendments. They add nothing to the argument; they make any form of pest control much more difficult and they discourage those who may wish to continue hunting. The amendments are unnecessarily bureaucratic. They will lead to deep confusion, and they are illiberal and intolerant.

Alun Michael: I am pleased that the Committee can come to an agreement on intimidating remarks. I hope that those who have contact with any organisation on either side of the debate will suggest that threats and intimidation do not help anyone's case. The words quoted by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire have great resonance with words that I heard from the Countryside Alliance. Threats are wrong, and it is wrong to suggest that Members of Parliament are impressed by intimidation.
 In my experience, the inclination on both sides of the House is to say, ''I will not be pushed around; I will not be bullied.'' It will do no harm at all if members of the Committee tell people on both sides of the hunting debate that they should use rational argument rather than intimidation. Sensible people and organisations on both sides would probably agree with us.

James Gray: I entirely agree with the Minister. Am I right in thinking, therefore, that he condemns the
 remarks made by the new president of the League Against Cruel Sports in this morning's Daily Mirror?

Alun Michael: We have all been quoted by the newspapers in a way that we find difficult to recognise on occasions, so on that evidence alone I would hesitate. If remarks such as that have been made, I urge hon. Members to have second thoughts and to withdraw them. If they have been misrepresented, I am sure that they will make that clear.
 I accept in principle that amendment No. 223 would be in the interests of the registered individual and the enforcement bodies. It was intended to be implicit that such evidence would need to be available to allow those engaged in registered activities to prove that they were registered and had the necessary permission. I accept that it would make better law if that were explicit in the Bill, but we must consider how we do it to avoid the problems that bureaucracy might cause, particularly in relation to permission from the occupier of the land. It is straightforward if one knows who owns the land and it is clear where the activity is being undertaken but, in a variety of circumstances, it is not clear who owns pieces of land and from whom permission should be sought where there are multiple ownerships in a fairly small area. Trespass can be dealt with in straightforward ways; we are concerned with whether an individual has registered the activity. 
 I express that reservation so as not to go too far, but my hon. Friend's basic point in moving the amendment was that there should be clarity about the registration and about where that allows the person to hunt, which is a different point from the ownership of the land. That is a matter that we can deal with. If the amendment is not pressed to a vote, I undertake to go through the matter with officials and table an amendment that gives effect to that requirement. 
 Amendment No. 290 would remove the requirement for a record to be maintained of hunting activity carried out under a group registration. I cannot agree with that. The purpose of maintaining a record of hunting activity is to be able to demonstrate compliance with the conditions to which it is subject. Without such a record, it would be impossible for the hunt to show that it had complied with the provisions relating to supervision arrangements and permitted numbers of hunters under clause 14(6). It is to the benefit of individuals who are carrying out an activity in reliance of group registration to have such a record. Failure to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of registration could lead to de-registration. 
 We required hunts to record those taking part in activities when we started to lift the restrictions following foot and mouth disease When I reviewed the arrangements with the Countryside Alliance and those engaged in the supervision of hunting activities—as I did on a number of occasions—they said that, once the requirements were understood, they had proved not to be as bureaucratic as had been feared. 
 The hon. Member for St. Ives said that he was not seeking to make fundamental changes in what he referred to as tidying-up amendments, particularly amendment No. 225. That requires that a record be made of the identity of each individual who participates in a hunt under a group registration, whether registered or not. The reason for the words that the amendment would remove is to make it clear that a record should be kept of all persons who hunt in reliance on group registration. The record should thus show the names of registered hunters and of unregistered hunters who hunt under their supervision. The records are needed to allow the hunters to prove that they have complied with the conditions of registration. Therefore, the removal of the words would again introduce unnecessary doubt about the scope of the requirement. Experience again suggests that the problems are not large. 
 Amendment No. 226 adds to the automatic conditions of registration a requirement that the record to be made of the hunting activity should be retained for six months after registration expires, while amendment No. 248 would make it an offence not to retain such a record. 
 The Bill does not presently contain an obligation to retain a record, although I am sure that all sensible people would do so because it would be their only way of demonstrating that they had complied with the requirements. Nevertheless, on reflection, it may be more sensible to set that requirement in statute. I therefore accept the point in principle and ask the amendment's supporters to allow me, in tidying up the response to this group of amendments, to go through the matter with my officials and draft an amendment. 
 I resist amendment No. 289 because it seeks to ensure that the record maintained under the conditions of group registration can be assessed by the registrar and the tribunal but not by any other person or body without the express consent of all those whose details are listed in it. There is nothing in the Bill that requires the records of the identities of persons taking part in hunting under group registration to be made available to either the public or the registrar and the tribunal. The keepers of those records will need to produce them only to the inspectors, the registrar or the tribunal where it is necessary to prove that they have hunted in accordance with the conditions of their registration. That, and that only, is the purpose of the requirement. 
 I partly accept the principle of amendment No. 228, which seeks to add two conditions. First, it would require at least one individual participating in hunting to carry written evidence, which is a parallel and common-sense requirement to the earlier amendment. It is sensible for that requirement to apply to group registration and I undertake to look for an appropriate wording. Secondly, it would require a report to be submitted to the registrar within 14 days of hunting activity under group registration, but I cannot see the practical value of such a report. Where there is concern about a particular hunting activity—for instance, if it is accepted that there are breaches of registration, that the registration is no longer necessary or that 
 registration is open to abuse—it is open to the prescribed animal welfare body to inspect the activity and, if appropriate, to seek deregistration. A report would therefore add to the bureaucracy involved, although I suspect that that was not the intention behind the amendment's drafting. As I indicated, I will table an amendment to the clause to require that evidence of registration is available. 
 Amendment No. 249 is not necessary. The purpose of the proposed defence is to avoid the need for unnecessary duplication of records by requiring every person who takes part in hunting to keep a separate copy. It should be sufficient for the purposes of the Bill if in an organised group and where appropriate controls were in place, one recognised official kept the records on behalf of all participants. 
 I hope that I have dealt adequately with the different amendments. On those to which I have indicated sympathy or partial sympathy, I give an undertaking to the Committee to come back with amendments on Report.

James Gray: On amendment No. 289, I take great comfort from the Minister's reassurance that the records should be kept by the hunt and need not be revealed to the registrar, the tribunal or anybody else under subsection (5)(a). The provisions under clause 23(1), whereby the registrar would make the records available to the public, do not apply to those records, from which I take great comfort because it makes our amendment unnecessary.

Colin Pickthall: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his positive responses to amendments Nos. 223, 226 and half of 288. In each case, he has given a commitment to look for an appropriate wording. When he looks at amendment No. 226, he might like to think of it terms of the Government amendments to clause 24, which opened up the possibilities of shorter periods of registration and repeated registrations. I am grateful for the progress that has been made and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Automatic conditions of group registration

Amendments made: No. 326, in 
clause 28, page 11, line 18, leave out 'or' and insert 
 ', the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (c.14),'.
 No. 327, in 
clause 28, page 11, line 19, at end add 
 'or the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 6), or under section 2 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c.51).'.—[Alun Michael.] 
Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - Amendment of Automatic conditions

Paddy Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 221, in
clause 29, page 11, leave out lines 23 and 24.
 In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), I am pleased to speak to the amendment, which will allow the Committee to have a short discussion about the role and powers of the Secretary of State after the Bill receives Royal Assent. 
 The Committee has had ample opportunity to discuss the registration process. It is clear that there are different views in the Room about the process and widely differing views about the wider issues. A new Secretary of State will have powers under clause 29 to propose changes to the registration scheme set out in clauses 27 and 28. For example, it would be within his power to remove the requirement for a representative of an animal welfare group to accompany the registered individual in the course of hunting, to remove the requirement for insurance or to remove the condition of consent to hunt on the land. All those things are to be done by order, and there is always some anxiety in Committee about the powers of a Secretary of State to do things by order. 
 The amendment would leave in the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to add a condition but take away his powers to remove or vary conditions. Perhaps the Minister would provide some examples of how a future Secretary of State would be inclined to use the powers.

Edward Garnier: This is self-evidently a bad amendment. I am delighted for the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that he is not here to move this dreadful piece of legislation and had to rely on the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) to do it for him.
 Removing paragraphs (b) and (c) is clearly a device that is designed to unbalance the Bill. It is bad enough to give the Secretary of State unspecified powers, but to give him the power only to add conditions, without at the same time giving him powers to remove or vary them, strikes me as wholly unjust and extremely dangerous. I am amazed that someone as sensible and honourable as the hon. Member for Sherwood, who has had the misfortune to move the amendment, thought it a good thing to do. I trust that he will reconsider.

Alun Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman has a remarkable talent for overstatement and for getting things out of proportion, which he has just exercised again. I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has moved the amendment. He wants to satisfy himself as to the nature of the measure that is being passed and to be certain that the clause will not allow major changes to be made later. I hope that I can reassure him on that point.
 My hon. Friend will know from his ministerial experience how often legislation that looks perfect during its passage through the House turns out, despite all the careful scrutiny that it receives, to contain anomalies. He will know also how difficult it is, to put it mildly and politely, to sort out even small items of primary legislation, even when there is unanimity on both sides of the House about the fact 
 that something unintended has happened. I am sure, Mrs. Roe, that you will have presided on many occasions when such an unintended consequence has been discussed. 
 I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood to accept that it is sensible, in case unforeseen circumstances arise, to allow a capacity to adjust or remove a condition, and to establish a mechanism for doing that. The alternative course would be to require primary legislation as the only way to bring about variations. The Bill, of course, contains a failsafe, in that any change under clause 29 requires the approval of both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. That, especially with respect to a contentious measure, is sensible, because it means—if I may read my hon. Friend's mind—that major changes cannot just be slipped through, but must be considered by the House. All hon. Members will thus have an opportunity either to accept that the change relates to an unintended wrinkle, or to changed circumstances, or to take the view that it goes beyond what the House wants. 
 I hope that I can also reassure my hon. Friend that the Government do not have in mind any changes to the Bill's operation. I appreciate that he was discussing what might happen under another Government; presumably far into the future. It is always as well to look as far ahead as possible. I hope that, now that he has probed the question of what is intended, my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the amendment.

James Gray: The Minister makes a convincing case and I hope that his hon. Friend will listen to him. There is no logic in removing the provisions for removing or varying conditions. However, we object to the clause, because it is a classic Henry VIII clause. Subsequent Secretaries of State with all kinds of views may use it to change the Bill fundamentally. We therefore oppose the clause.

Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for the Minister's comments and take his point that it will be a long time before there is a Secretary of State who is hostile to the Bill. I am grateful, also, for his confirmation of what I expected; that the affirmative resolution would be used if it proved necessary to revisit the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 30 and 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Group registration: addition or replacement

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No.40, in
clause 32, page 12, leave out lines 25 and 26.
 Subsection (4) has no relation whatever to animal welfare. By no stretch of anybody's imagination could something that restricted somebody from joining a group registration as described under subsection (4) possibly make the death of the quarry species better, worse or indifferent. It therefore seems only right that that subsection be deleted, because the Bill's purpose, as often stated by the Minister, is purely to look after animal welfare, with which subsection (4) has no relationship. If that subsection were to remain, it would bring back a problem that we have discussed already over the definition of what a hunt and followers are. 
 If the Minister intends that definition to be ''anybody at all wishing to join a hunt as a supervised person under the terms of the Bill'', that is quite unacceptable. There might be up to 1,000 people out on any one day, and anyone seeking to join the hunt would require the consent of more than 50 per cent. of the others, which would be wholly impractical and bizarre. I can therefore presume only that when Minister talks about the number of people in that context he means the people controlling the dogs; the people doing the hunting itself. Even then it might not be possible to achieve more than 50 per cent., because people who are doing that might fall out with each other and might not come to a reasonable agreement about whether a third or fourth person should join them. 
 Subsection (4) is not only unreasonable on its own terms, but entirely pointless as regards animal welfare. We suggest that it be removed from the Bill.

Rob Marris: If subsection (4) were deleted pursuant to the amendment—I am talking hypothetically—what would there be to prevent someone who was a member of the League Against Cruel Sports, of which the hon. Gentleman has a low opinion, from applying to join a group registration? That would be like someone applying to join a club and the club not being able to stop them.

James Gray: There would be nothing whatever to stop that, and there is nothing to stop it at the moment.

Rob Marris: With respect, there is something to stop people doing that; subsection (4), which the hon. Gentleman seeks to remove. That is precisely the point I am trying to make. That provision could stop what I described. The people in the group registration could say, ''Well, you have different views from us on this activity. You're not joining our club, thank you very much, because you can't get more than half of us signed up''. That is precisely why that provision is in the clause.

Edward Garnier: I rather suspect that the hon. Gentleman's arguments are non-arguments. Subsection (4) is no more than another hurdle over which those who wish to apply for a hunting license must climb. In some hunts, such as the larger and older ones, there will be hundreds of members, if not thousands. Those hunts that are already like other aspects of the rural economy will be required to jump yet another bureaucratic hurdle in order to carry out their legitimate activities. That tells us rather more about the Government, and the Bill and its genesis. Subsection (4) is wholly unnecessary. The prospect of a member of the League Against Cruel Sports joining the Cottesmore, the Fernie or the Quorn and seeking adversely to influence its activities is remote. However, even if somebody did, so what?

John Gummer: Can we look at the matter simply? Most hunts are organised straightforwardly; people join them and they either like them or not. I do not know of a single hunt that has asked for special protection in case a member of LACS wishes to join it. That makes no sense. I hope that the Minister will carefully address the point that there is a suspicion abroad that the Bill is designed to make it difficult or impossible for hunting to take place. This clause increases that suspicion because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, it has nothing to do with animal welfare and it is not useful. The Minister seems willing to help all who table amendments from Labour Benches. On this one occasion, could he not be generous, recognise that the subsection is of no use, and withdraw it. If he were able to do that, we would be very cheered at the end of a long day.

Alun Michael: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I always listen carefully to what he says; sometimes with fascination to find out where he is going to take us. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough picked up, developed and extrapolated his point beyond the bounds of reason. This simple element of the Bill is designed to avoid the possibility—about which concern has been expressed—of individuals who are not acceptable to a group that has applied successfully to undertake the activity having their names added to its registration. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West touched on it too. The purpose is to ensure that that could not happen in practice.
 If an application for a group registration were to come from an organisation with a formal structure, it would be clear where the application was coming from. It is significant where an application originates and other potential applicants might not have such a formal structure. In view of the comments of Opposition Members, I should be happy to hear any suggestions that they have for a better way to provide a safeguard against individuals adding themselves to a group application, and I am willing to table amendments accordingly. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal sees how reasonable I am prepared to be. If right hon. and hon. Members will let me have their suggestions, I shall consider them between now and Report.

Edward Garnier: I am genuinely puzzled by what the Minister is worried about. What sort of organisation is going to be overrun? Is it some sort of irregular group of terrier men or badger baiters who will try to pretend that they are an association of foxhunters? I do not understand what he is on about.

Alun Michael: I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman understood that a group that is registered has responsibility for the supervision of others. Therefore, if people could add themselves to registrations in some way, they might cause a problem, such as the one indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. However, the provision would prevent that. It would be no skin off my nose if the protection were to be removed. I am trying to be reasonable, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal invited me to be; I try to be reasonable even when not invited to be so. If Opposition Members wish to give it some thought, or if anyone else wishes to make suggestions, I am happy to consider other ways of dealing with an issue that was raised when we consulted on the drafting of the Bill.

James Gray: This subsection seems disingenuous in the extreme. Its purpose is to prevent an anti-hunt person from joining a hunt, but the simplest way to do it would be for the person who is registered for the group to say whether or not that person should join the hunt. That is easy. However, the subsection says that for any individual to join a group, whether pro or anti, it would be necessary to have the written approval of more than 50 per cent. of the people hunting. The Beaufort hunt has 3,000 members, and every person who wished to join would need the written approval of 1,501 members of the hunt. The provision is designed to prevent our friends from joining the hunt, rather than those who are opposed to hunting. If the Minister is concerned about people who are opposed to hunting joining a hunt, it would be better to give a right of veto to the person who has the group registration.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman might like to consider the more informal group at the other end of the spectrum. To achieve what he suggests, they would need a particular type of constitution; at the moment, they can make a group application without any bureaucracy. The hon. Gentleman has not thought it through. We are certainly not engaged in conspiracy. I have no attachment to the amendment. It is meant to help those organisations, so that they are not drawn into bureaucracy.

James Gray: There will always one person in charge of making a group registration; he should be allowed a veto. However, I take some comfort from the fact that the Minister apparently says that his purpose is to help hunters. I am grateful for that, although I am not sure that he will achieve his ambition. He said that he is ready to listen to us. He said that the sole purpose of the clause is to help hunting and to make it easier to register. With that understanding, which will be on the record, we shall come back on Report with more suggestions, which he politely requested. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rob Marris: No.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendments made: No. 328, in 
clause 32, page 12, line 33, at end insert— 
 '( ) a conviction for an offence under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (c.14), 
 ( ) a conviction for an offence under section 2 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c.51),'.
 No. 329, in 
clause 32, page 12, line 35, after '1996 (c.3)' insert— 
 '( ) a conviction for an offence under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 6),'.—[Alun Michael.] 
Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - De-registration: conviction of offence

Amendments made: No. 330, in 
clause 33, page 13, line 11, leave out 'or' and insert— 
 '( ) the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (c.14), 
 ( ) section 2 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c.51),'.
 No. 331, in 
clause 33, page 13, line 12, at end insert 
 ', or 
 ( ) the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 6).'.—[Mr. Michael.] 
Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 34 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Six o'clock till Tuesday 4 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.